View full case

ROBERTO T. DOMONDON v. NLRC

FACTS:

In November 1998, Roberto Domondon initiated a complaint against Van Melle Phils., Inc. (VMPI) and its President and General Manager, Niels Have, alleging illegal dismissal and seeking reinstatement and monetary claims. Domondon claimed that he was hired as the Materials Manager by VMPI in January 1997, with a guaranteed monthly salary, benefits, and a company car. He contended that after Have assumed the position of President and General Manager, he experienced verbal abuse and his competence was questioned. Domondon further alleged that on June 10, 1998, Have threatened him and offered financial assistance in exchange for his resignation. As a result, Domondon eventually resigned and VMPI promptly announced his replacement through a memorandum on the same day.

On its part, VMPI argued that Domondon voluntarily resigned and even requested for a "soft landing" financial support, which they granted. VMPI claimed that Domondon proposed transferring ownership of the company car to him as part of the financial assistance, but he failed to fulfill his payment obligations as agreed upon. Consequently, VMPI gave Domondon the option to settle the remaining balance or return the car. However, Domondon chose to file a complaint for illegal dismissal instead.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Domondon's complaint, a decision which was later affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Domondon filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, asserting that the burden of proof lies on the employer to establish lawful termination.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that petitioner voluntarily resigned from his position.

  2. Whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the question of the transfer of ownership of the car assigned to petitioner.

  3. Whether the claim of private respondents for damages against petitioner arose from the employer-employee relationship of the parties.

  4. Whether petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

  5. Whether petitioner is entitled to 14th month pay, cash conversion of sick and vacation leaves, and profit share.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the uniform findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals, the NLRC, and the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner's letter of resignation, his educational attainment, and the circumstances surrounding the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal are substantial proof of petitioner's voluntary resignation. The Court also notes that petitioner's letter of resignation clearly stated his reason for resigning and his subsequent actions, such as receiving financial assistance and retaining and using the car subject of his arrangement with the private respondents, further indicated his intent to relinquish his position. Therefore, the finding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed is affirmed.

  2. The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters includes cases involving claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations. In this case, there is no dispute that petitioner is an employee of the respondents. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the question of the transfer of ownership of the car assigned to petitioner.

  3. The claim of private respondents for damages against petitioner arose from the employer-employee relationship of the parties. Therefore, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under paragraph 6 of Article 217(a).

  4. Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees as he voluntarily resigned and was not illegally dismissed.

  5. Petitioner is entitled to 14th month pay, cash conversion of sick and vacation leaves, and profit share. The total amount of P169,368.32 that he is entitled to shall be applied to his obligation to pay P300,000.00 for the company car in his custody.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law and it cannot re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of evidence presented.

  • The findings of the Court of Appeals, the NLRC, and the Labor Arbiter, when in agreement, are accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence.

  • Resignation is a formal pronouncement of relinquishment of an office and is accompanied by an act of relinquishment.

  • Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters includes cases involving claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations.

  • Article 217 of the Labor Code covers claims arising from employer-employee relations, including claims for damages, regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

  • Claims for reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees are only granted to illegally dismissed employees.

  • Voluntary resignation does not entitle the employee to reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

  • Employees are entitled to 14th month pay, cash conversion of accrued sick and vacation leaves, and profit share as determined by the court.