CASE 14 DIGEST & DOCTRINES

G.R. No. 219419

Carolina’s Lace Shoppe, vs.
Maquilan

Facts:
Gloria and Joy Maquilan (Respondents) were employed by Carolina’s Lace Shoppe
(CLS) as sales clerk and beader respectively. In April 2008, the DOLE inspected CLS.
Upon inspection, one of the latter’s employees, Santiago Espultero reported that he
was receiving a below minimum wage. Thereafter, he was terminated and was made
to sign a quitclaim in order to receive his separation pay. A month after, Gloria and
Joy were terminated under the same circumstances, submitting a resignation letter
and forced to sign a quitclaim.
Gloria and Joy then filed a case for illegal dismissal with money claims against CLS.
In response, CLS alleged that they were not illegally dismissed, evidenced by their
resignation letter. LA decided in favor of Gloria and Joy, however NLRC reversed the
ruling appreciating the resignation letter and held that they were voluntarily made.
Upon appeal to the CA, the CA reinstated the decision of the LA stating the the tenor
of the resignation letter and quitclaims belied the clear intent of severing
employment relationship. Hence petition was filed by CLS.

Issue:
Whether or not Gloria and Joy were illegally dismissed.

Ruling:
Yes, they were illegally dismissed. The SC held that “the act of the employee before
and after the alleged resignation must be considered to determine whether in fact,
he or she intended to relinquish such employment.”
In this regard, there was no clear intention on the part of Gloria and Joy to relinquish
their employment, evidenced by their act of filing a case of illegal dismissal with
money claims. Such act of filing said complain is difficult to reconcile with voluntary
resignation.

Case Doctrines:
1. Rule in Illegal Dismissal Cases.

“In illegal dismissal cases, the fundamental rule is that when an employer
interposes the defense of resignation, the burden to prove that the employee
indeed voluntarily resigned necessarily rests upon the employer”1

2. How an employee’s act of severing employment may be measured.

“x x x. The act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must
be considered to determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish
such employment. If the employer introduced evidence purportedly executed
by an employee as proof of voluntary resignation and the employee
specifically denies the authenticity and due execution of said document, the
employer is burdened to prove the due execution and genuineness of such
document.”2

3. Resignation letters in the nature of a quitclaim.

1
Doble, jr v. ABB, Inc./Nitin Desai, 810 Phil. 210, 228-229 (2017)
2
514 Phil. 317 (2005)
 “Resignation letters in the nature of a quitclaim, lopsidedly worded to free
the employer from liabilities reveal the absence of voluntariness.”3

4. Validity and enforceability of quitclaims and waivers of employees.

“In order to prevent disputes on the validity and enforceability of quitclaims

and waivers of employees under Philippine laws, said agreements should
contain the following:
a. A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement;
b. The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding
amounts, which the employees are giving up in consideration of the
fixed compromise amount;
c. A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the employee
in English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to the employees – that by
signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing
their right to receive the benefits which are due them under the law;
and
d. A statement that the employees signed and executed the document
voluntarily, and had fully understood the content of the document and
that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence,
duress, intimidation, or undue influence exerted on their person.” 4

5. Presumption of regularity of notarized documents.

“The presumption of regularity as regards notarized documents is not

absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary.”5

6. Security of tenure.

“There are no shortcuts in terminating the security of tenure of an

employee.”6

3
Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad, 497 Phil 621, 630 (2005)
4
EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 563 Phil. 1 (2007)
5
Spouses Martres v. Chua, 707 Phil. 34, 47 (2013)
6
Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. 229881, September 5, 2018.
CASE 15 DIGEST & DOCTRINES

G.R. No. 204971

Congress of Independent Organization-Associated Labor Unions, vs.
Court of Appeals and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company

Facts:
Congress of Independent Organizations-Associated Labor Unions (CIO-ALU) is a
legitimate labor organization which represents the workers in San Carlos Milling
Company, Inc. (SCMCI). CIO-ALU is among the complainants in three (3) cases
against SCMCI for unpaid wage increases, 13th month pay, differential pay, holiday
pay, and separation pay. All three cases were eventually decided in favor of the
SCMCI workers.

The controversy before the Court arose during the consolidated proceedings for the
execution of the three separate judgments When Metro Bank and Trust Company
(MBTC), upon learning of the impending auction sale of SCMCI’s properties, filed a
third-party claim alleging, among others, that it is the owner of the properties to be
levied pursuant to a certificate of sale. On February 20, 2006, Executive Labor
Arbiter Acosta (ELA Acosta) issued an order granting MBTC’s third-party claim and
deferred Sheriff Paredes from conducting the auction as scheduled. CIO-ALU filed an
indemnity bond which was granted by ELA Acosta on June 2006. A notice of sale of
properties on June 26, 2006 was issued by Sheriff Paredes in response to the ELA
Acosta’s order.

The NLRC gave due course to MBTC’s petition for injunction against Sheriff Paredes
and any person acting under their authority from executing in whole or in party
upon the properties subject of MBTC’s third -party claim.

Notwithstanding the permanent injunction issued by the NLRC, ELA Acosta issued
an Order directing Sheriff Paredes to implement the June 2006 Acosta Order to
satisfy the judgment award. Aggrieved, MBTC filed a Motion to Recall Break Open
Order and an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Inventory/Accounting.

In an Order dated November 13, 2006, ELA Acosta directed Sheriff Paredes to
implement the writs of execution against SCMCI. He, likewise, issued a break open
order so that the Sheriff can take possession of items not belonging to MBTC.

Sheriff Paredes resumed the execution of the judgment award and took the
properties covered by the Certificate of Sale issued to MBTC. To protect its rights and
interests, MBTC instituted a complaint for reconveyance and recovery of personal
properties with damages against CIO-ALU and Sheriff Paredes, which was docketed
as Civil Case No. RTC-963 and raffled to Branch 59 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental. The RTC, then, issued an Order dated January
22, 2007 enjoining CIO-ALU and the Sheriff of the NLRC from conducting further
execution on all the properties located in the SCMCI compound/plant, effective upon
MBTC's filing of a bond in the sum of P500,000.00 in addition to the bond posted by
CIO-ALU in the amount of P500,000.00.

The RTC dismissed MBTC's petition for reconveyance. MBTC sought reconsideration,
but was denied in an Order dated June 2, 2011.
CA rendered a decision in favor of MBTC. CIO-ALU filed a motion for reconsideration
which the CA denied, hence this petition.

Issues:

1. Whether CA gravely abused its judicial discretion in granting and declaring

the MBTC’s petition for certiorari and prohibition to be meritorious
notwithstanding the admissions of the MBTC which refute the MBTC’s third-
party claim.
Ruling:
1. No. The issues raised by the petition, allege grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the CA in rendering the assailed decision and resolution. However,
certiorari is not the proper remedy from a decision of the CA in a labor
proceeding. The process of reviewing decisions of the labor tribunals has
been settled with clarity in the leading case of St. Martin Funeral Home v.
NLRC, where the Court held that review of NLRC decisions must be made
before the CA by petition for certiorari under Rule 65; and then before this
Court by petition for review under Rule 45, for the special civil action of
certiorari is a distinct remedy from, and not a substitute for, appeal by
certiorari under Rule 45. Even if We exercise our judicial discretion and
consider the petition as one for review on certiorari under Rule 45, We would
still be constrained to deny the petition for being filed out of time. CIO-ALU
received the assailed CA resolution on October 18, 2012; thus, it had 15
daysfrom that date, or until November 2, 2012, to file the petition. However,
the petition was filed only on December 28, 2012 - almost two months after
the reglementary period under the Rules of Court had lapsed.
Case Doctrines:
1. Certiorari is not the proper remedy from a decision of the CA in a labor
proceeding.

“Review of NLRC decisions must be made before the CA by petition for

certiorari under Rule 65; and then before the SC by petition for review under
rule 45, for the special civil action of certiorari is a distinct remedy from and
not a substitute for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.” 7

2. Effect of levy on property on judgment.

“Mere levy on property of sufficient value to cover the judgment award does
not operate as a satisfaction of the judgment, but merely as a prima facie
evidence or a presumption of satisfaction.”8

3. Rules of Court applies suppletory to NLRC Execution Manual.

“A levy only creates a lien over the property in favor of the judgment oblige.
In order to afford full satisfaction of judgment from the levied property, an
execution sale must be conducted, and satisfied only upon payment of the
judgment award or the issuance of a certificate of sale in favor of the
judgment creditor after the conduct of an execution sale.”9

7
St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 811.
8
Smith v. Condon, 174 Mass 550; Churchill v. Warren, 2 NH 298; United States v. Dashiel, 70 U.S. 688
9
Rule 39, Section 9, 12. Rules of Court.