Domondon v.

National Labor Relations Commission,

G.R. No. 154376, September 30, 2005
471 SCRA 559, 566.

Nature of the action: petition for review on certiorari

Material Facts: Roberto T. Domondon was hired as Materials Manager by Van

Melle Phils., Inc. (VMPI), a manufacturing company engaged in the production
and distribution of confectionaries and related products, through its then President
and General Manager, Victor M. Endaya. Given the said position, Domondon was
tasked to supervise the inventory control, purchasing, and warehouse and
distribution sections of the company. Domondon alleged that things worked out
well for him until Endaya was transferred to China and was replaced by Niels H.B.
Have, a Dutch national. Domondon likewise alleged that Have immediately set a
one-on-one meeting with him and requested his courtesy resignation to which he
refused. The said refusal led to series of maltreatment, threats, and verbal abuse
thereafter. Eventually, Domondon tendered his resignation through signing a ready-
made resignation letter. As a result, he filed a complaint before the Regional
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, Quezon City, against VMPI and Have claiming
he was illegally dismissed by the latter.

Private respondents denied Domondons allegations, and claimed that he

voluntarily resigned to embark on management consultancy in the field of strategic
planning and import/export. Domondon informed them about his intention to
resign and requested a soft landing financial support of P300,000.00 on top of
accrued benefits due him upon resignation to which they granted. Subsequently,
however, petitioner proposed the transfer of ownership of the car assigned to him
in lieu of the financial assistance from the company. Since company policy
prohibits disposition of assets without valuable consideration, the parties agreed
that petitioner shall pay for the car with the P300,000.00 soft landing financial
assistance from private respondent VMPI. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the
private respondents, which was affirmed by the NLRC and denied Domondons
Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the decision
of NLRC. Hence, this petition.

Issues:
1. Whether the appellate court failed to apply the rule in termination of
employment that the burden rests upon the employer to prove by substantial
evidence that the employee was removed for lawful or authorized cause.
2. Whether the Labor Arbiter has acquired the jurisdiction to resolve the issue of
the transfer of car-ownership by private respondents.
Ruling: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Court of Appeals
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Roberto T. Domondon
is ORDERED to pay private respondent Van Melle Phils., Inc. the
amount of P130,631.68, representing the balance of the purchase
price of the car in his custody after deducting his entitlement to
14th month pay, cash conversion of accrued sick and vacation
leaves and profit share in the total amount of P169,368.32 from
the P300,000.00 soft-landing financial assistance he received
from private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found no compelling reason to disturb

the uniform findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals, the
NLRC and the Labor Arbiter. There was no arbitrary disregard or
misapprehension of evidence of such nature as to compel a
contrary conclusion if properly appreciated. Domondons letter
of resignation, his educational attainment, and the circumstances
antecedent and contemporaneous to the filing of the complaint
for illegal dismissal are substantial proof of his voluntary
resignation. The Court is not convinced that Domondon was
coerced and intimidated into signing the ready-made resignation
letter since he is no ordinary employee with limited education. He
has a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Economics from the University of
Santo Tomas, has completed academic requirements for Masters
of Business Economics from the University of Asia and the Pacific,
and studied law for two (2) years at Adamson University. He also
has a good professional record, which highlights his marketability.
In termination cases, the employer decides for the employee. It is
different in resignation cases for resignation is a formal
pronouncement of relinquishment of an office. It is made with the
intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by an act of
relinquishment.

The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters is provided under Article

217(a) of the Labor Code, as amended. There is no dispute that
petitioner is an employee of the respondents. The records show
that the initial agreement of the parties was that petitioner would
be extended a soft-landing financial assistance in the amount
of P300,000.00 on top of his accrued benefits at the time of the
effectivity of his resignation. However, petitioner later changed
his mind. He requested that he be allowed to keep the car
assigned to him in lieu of the financial assistance. However,
company policy prohibits transfer of ownership of property
without valuable consideration. Thus, the parties agreed that
petitioner shall still be extended the P300,000.00 financial
support, which he shall use to pay for the subject car. On July 30,
1998, private respondent VMPI deposited the agreed amount in
petitioners account. Despite having registered the car in his name
and repeated demands from private respondents, petitioner failed
to pay for it as agreed upon. Petitioner did not also return the car.
Without doubt, the transfer of the ownership of the company car
to petitioner is connected with his resignation and arose out of
the parties employer-employee relations. Accordingly, private
respondents claim for damages falls within the jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter.

Dusit Hotel Nikko v. National Union of Workers in Hotel,

Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN), Dusit Hotel Nikko
Chapter

G.R. No. 160391, 9 August 2005

466 SCRA 374, 387-388

Nature of the proceeding: petition for review on certiorari

Material Facts: The petitioner Hotel, formerly known as Hotel Nikko Manila
Garden, was owned and managed by the Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. (PHI), a
corporation substantially owned by Japan Airlines (JAL). In November 1995, JAL
formally turned over its majority shareholdings in PHI to a Thai corporation, Dusit
Thani Public Co., Ltd. (Dusit). This gave Dusit the managerial control over the
Hotel, which was then renamed Dusit Hotel Nikko.

With the very stiff competition in the hotel industry in mind, Dusit has set a
twofold objective, namely: (1) the total renovation of the Hotel, where it had
earmarked the amount of about P300,000,000.00; and (2) a complete
reorganization of the Hotels manpower complement. The renovation of the Hotel,
which called for its closure, began on May 1, 1996 and ended six months
thereafter. On the other hand, the reorganization was done to standardize the Hotels
organizational set-up with all Dusit Hotels around the world and train the
employees for their eventual deployment to its other chain of hotels. The
reorganization program started with a staff reduction program wherein employees
were given the chance to voluntarily avail of the SERP. As per its guidelines, the
SERP is a one-time program offered by the Hotel to its regular employees who had
at least one year of service as of April 30, 1996, in order to achieve the following:
(a) realize optimum operational productivity and efficiency through a
reorganization that will eliminate redundant position; (b) reduce expenses of the
company; and (c) provide employees the opportunity to receive lump-sum benefits
for their immediate use before the 6-month closure.

Pursuant to the reorganization program, a reclassification of positions ensued

upon resumption of the Hotels operation. Consequently, the position of Agoncillo
as Senior Front Office Cashier was abolished and a new position of Guest Services
Agent absorbing its functions was created. Considering that the new position
requires skills in both reception and cashiering operations, respondent Hotel
deemed it necessary to transfer Agoncillo to another position as Outlet Cashier,
which does not require other skills aside from cashiering.

The transfer of Agoncillo from Senior Front Office Cashier to Outlet Cashier
does not entail any diminution of salary or rank. Despite which, she vehemently
refused the transfer and insisted that she be reinstated to her former position. Since
Agoncillo was not amenable to the said transfer, she did not assume her new
position and since then had stopped reporting for work despite the Hotels patient
reminder to act on the contrary. Instead, she filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice and constructive dismissal to question the prerogative of the management
to validly transfer her to another position as she considers the transfer an act of
constructive dismissal amounting to illegal termination and unfair labor practice in
the form of union busting.

Issue: Whether Agoncillo was constructively dismissed by the petitioner Hotel.

Ruling: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for

lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio Decidendi: The petition is unmeritorious. The petitioners reiterate their

submission that respondent Agoncillo had never been dismissed; she was merely
transferred to another position, that of Outlet Cashier. She had been temporarily
laid off because of the renovation of the hotel but she remained as an employee of
the hotel. Following the completion of the renovation of the hotel, she was offered
the position of outlet cashier; but she already filed her complaint before the Hotel
was able to determine what position she could occupy which was mutually
acceptable. The petitioners aver that the transfer of the respondent to the position
of Outlet Cashier was a valid exercise of management prerogative based on its
assessment of her qualification, aptitude and competence, absent any showing to be
contrary to law, morals or public policy, unreasonable, inconvenient and prejudicial
to the employee. The petitioners insist that the transfer of Agoncillo was pursuant
to its objective of completely reorganizing its manpower component. It did not
entail any diminution in salary, benefits, privileges or job level. The petitioners
also maintain that even if the respondent was separated from the Hotel, it was
justified to do so due to redundancy. The validity of the said program was even
recognized by the respondents in the MOA executed by petitioner Hotel and the
respondent Union. The petitioners maintain that the respondents are bound by the
MOA.

April Rose F. Flores

Admin Law