Penaflor v. Outdoor Clothing

7/27/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME610
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.Absent any proof of fraud or double dealing,
therefor, the doctrine on piercing the veil of corporate
entity would not apply. (Aratea vs. Sevico, 518 SCRA 501
[2007])
o0o
G.R. No. 177114. January 21, 2010.*
MANOLO A. PEAFLOR, petitioner, vs. OUTDOOR
CLOTHING
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION,
NATHANIEL T. SYFU, President, MEDYLENE M.
DEMOGENA, Finance Manager, and PAUL U. LEE,
Chairman, respondents.
Remedial Law Appeals Rule that a Rule 45 petition deals
only with legal issues is not an absolute rule It admits of
exceptions The conflicting factual findings below are not binding
on the Court which retain its authority to pass on the evidence
presented and draw conclusions therefrom.We see no merit in
this argument as the rule that a Rule 45 petition deals only with
legal issues is not an absolute rule it admits of exceptions. In the
labor law setting, we wade into factual issues when conflict of
factual findings exists among the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and
the CA. This is the exact situation that obtains in the present case
since the labor arbiter found facts supporting the conclusion that
there had been constructive dismissal, while the NLRCs and the
CAs factual findings contradicted the labor arbiters findings.
Under this situation, the conflicting factual findings below are not
binding on us, and we retain the authority to pass on the evidence
presented and draw conclusions therefrom.
Labor Law Termination of Employment Evidence In
employee termination disputes, the employer bears the burden of
proving that the employees dismissal was for just and valid cause.
The first is the settled rule that in employee termination
disputes, the employer bears the burden of proving that the
employees dismissal was for just and valid cause. That Peaflor
did indeed file a letter of resignation does not help the companys
case as, other than the fact of resignation, the company must still
prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. There can be no
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001562aad242b59b88092003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/14
7/27/2016
valid resignation where the act was made under compulsion or

under circumstances approximating compulsion, such as when an
employees act of handing in his resignation was a reaction to
circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign. In sum,
the evidence does not support the existence of voluntariness in
Peaflors resignation.
Same Same Same The principle that all doubts in the
interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be
interpreted in favor of the workingman has been extended by
jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the
employer and the employee.Another basic principle is that
expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Codethat all doubts in the
interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be
interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has been
extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence
presented by the employer and the employee. As shown above,
Peaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits
of the companys case, particularly in the appreciation of the
clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were
based. In such contest of evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us
to rule in Peaflors favor.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Vicente S. Pulido for petitioner.
Kho, Bustos, Malcontento, Argosino Law Offices for
respondents.
BRION, J.:
Petitioner Manolo A. Peaflor (Peaflor) seeks the
reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision1 dated
December 29, 2006 and its resolution2 dated March 14,
2007, through the present petition for review on certiorari
filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The assailed CA
decision affirmed the September 24, 2002 decision3 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that in turn
reversed the August 15, 2001 decision4 of the Labor
Arbiter.5
The Factual Antecedents
Peaflor was hired on September 2, 1999 as
probationary Human Resource Department (HRD)
Manager of respondent Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing
Corporation (Outdoor Clothing or the company). As HRD
head, Peaflor was expected to (1) secure and maintain the
right quality and quantity of people needed by the
company (2) maintain the harmonious relationship
between the employees and management in a role that
supports organizational goals and individual aspirations
2/14
7/27/2016
and (3) represent the company in labor cases or

proceedings. Two staff members were assigned to work
with him to assist him in undertaking these functions.
Peaflor claimed that his relationship with Outdoor
Clothing went well during the first few months of his
employment he designed and created the companys Policy
Manual, Personnel Handbook, Job Expectations, and
Organizational SetUp during this period. His woes began
when the companys Vice President for Operations, Edgar
Lee (Lee), left the company after a big fight between Lee
and Chief Corporate Officer Nathaniel Syfu (Syfu). Because
of his close association with Lee, Peaflor claimed that he
was among those who bore Syfus ire.
When Outdoor Clothing began undertaking its alleged
downsizing program due to negative business returns,
Peaflor alleged that his department had been singled out.
On the pretext of retrenchment, Peaflors two staff
members were dismissed, leaving him as the only member
of Outdoor Clothings HRD and compelling him to perform
all personnelrelated work. He worked as a oneman
department, carrying out all clerical, administrative and
liaison work he personally went to various government
offices to process the companys papers.
When an Outdoor Clothing employee, Lynn Padilla
(Padilla), suffered injuries in a bombing incident, the
company required Peaflor to attend to her hospitalization
needs he had to work outside office premises to undertake
this task. As he was acting on the companys orders,
Peaflor considered himself to be on official business, but
was surprised when the company deducted six days salary
corresponding to the time he assisted Padilla. According to
Finance Manager Medylene Demogena (Demogena), he
failed to submit his trip ticket, but Peaflor belied this
claim as a trip ticket was required only when a company
vehicle was used and he did not use any company vehicle
when he attended to his offpremises work.6After Peaflor
returned from his field work on March 13, 2000, his
officemates informed him that while he was away, Syfu
had appointed Nathaniel Buenaobra (Buenaobra) as the
new HRD Manager. This information was confirmed by
Syfus memorandum of March 10, 2000 to the entire office
stating that Buenaobra was the concurrent HRD and
Accounting Manager.7 Peaflor was surprised by the news
he also felt betrayed and discouraged. He tried to talk to
Syfu to clarify the matter, but was unable to do so. Peaflor
claimed that under these circumstances, he had no option
but to resign. He submitted a letter to Syfu declaring his
irrevocable resignation from his employment with Outdoor
3/14
7/27/2016
Clothing effective at the close of office hours on March 15,

2000.8
Peaflor then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
the labor arbiter, claiming that he had been constructively
dismissed. He included in his complaint a prayer for
reinstatement and payment of backwages, illegally
deducted salaries, damages, attorneys fees, and other
monetary claims.
Outdoor Clothing denied Peaflors allegation of
constructive dismissal. It posited instead that Peaflor had
voluntarily resigned from his work. Contrary to Peaflors
statement that he had been dismissed from employment
upon Syfus appointment of Buenaobra as the new HRD
Manager on March 10, 2000, Peaflor had in fact continued
working for the company until his resignation on March 15,
2000. The company cited as evidence the security report
that Peaflor himself prepared and signed on March 13,
2000.9
Outdoor Clothing disclaimed liability for any of
Peaflors monetary claims. Since Peaflor had voluntarily
resigned, Outdoor Clothing alleged that he was not entitled
to any backwages and damages. The company likewise
denied making any illegal deduction from Peaflors salary
while deductions were made, they were due to Peaflors
failure to report for work during the dates the company
questioned. As a probationary employee, he was not yet
entitled to any leave credit that would offset his absences.
In his August 15, 2001 decision, the labor arbiter found
that Peaflor had been illegally dismissed.10 Outdoor
Clothing was consequently ordered to reinstate Peaflor to
his former or to an equivalent position, and to pay him his
illegally deducted salary for six days, proportionate 13th
month pay, attorneys fees, moral and exemplary
damages.Outdoor Clothing appealed the labor arbiters
decision with the NLRC. It insisted that Peaflor had not
been constructively dismissed, claiming that Peaflor
tendered his resignation on March 1, 2000 because he saw
no future with the corporation due to its dire financial
standing. Syfu alleged that he was compelled to appoint
Buenaobra as concurrent HRD Manager through a
memorandum dated March 1, 2000 to cover the position
that Peaflor would soon vacate.11 The appointment was
also made to address the personnel matters that had to be
taken cared of while Peaflor was on unauthorized leave.
Incidentally, Outdoor Clothing alleged that Peaflor had
already been given two notices, on March 6 and 11, 2000
(absence without official leave memoranda or the AWOL
memoranda), for his unauthorized absences. In a
4/14
7/27/2016
memorandum dated March 3, 2000 addressed to Syfu,

Buenaobra accepted the appointment.12
Peaflor contested Syfus March 1, 2000 memorandum,
Buenaobras March 3, 2000 memorandum, and the AWOL
memoranda, claiming these pieces of evidence were
fabricated and were never presented before the labor
arbiter. He pointed out that nothing in this resignation
letter indicated that it was submitted to and received by
Syfu on March 1, 2000. He claimed that it was submitted
on March 15, 2000, the same date he made his resignation
effective. The AWOL memoranda could not be relied on, as
he was never furnished copies of these. Moreover, he could
not be on prolonged absence without official leave, as his
residence was just a few meters away from the office.
The NLRC apparently found Outdoor Clothings
submitted memoranda sufficient to overturn the labor
arbiters decision.13 It characterized Peaflors resignation
as a response, not to the allegedly degrading and hostile
treatment that he was subjected to by Syfu, but to Outdoor
Clothings downward financial spiral. Buenaobras
appointment was made only after Peaflor had submitted
his resignation letter, and this was made to cover the
vacancy Peaflors resignation would create. Thus,
Peaflor was not eased out from his position as HRD
manager. No malice likewise was present in the companys
decision to dismiss Peaflors two staff members the
company simply exercised its management prerogative to
address the financial problems it faced. Peaflor, in fact,
drafted the dismissal letters of his staff members. In the
absence of any illegal dismissal, no basis existed for the
monetary awards the labor arbiter granted.
Peaflor anchored his certiorari petition with the CA on
the claim that the NLRC decision was tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, although he essentially adopted the
same arguments he presented before the labor arbiter and
the NLRC.
In a decision dated December 29, 2006,14 the CA
affirmed the NLRCs decision, stating that Peaflor failed
to present sufficient evidence supporting his claim that he
had been constructively dismissed. The CA ruled that
Peaflors resignation was knowingly and voluntarily
made. Accordingly, it dismissed Peaflors certiorari
petition. It likewise denied the motion for reconsideration
that Peaflor subsequently filed.15 Faced with these CA
actions, Peaflor filed with us the present petition for
review on certiorari.
The Parties Arguments
Peaflor insists that, contrary to the findings of the
5/14
7/27/2016
NLRC and the CA, he had been constructively dismissed

from his employment with Outdoor Clothing. He alleges
that the dismissal of his two staff members, the demeaning
liaison work he had to perform as HRD Manager, the
salary deduction for his alleged unauthorized absences, and
the appointment of Buenaobra as the new HRD manager
even before he tendered his resignation, were clear acts of
discrimination that made his continued employment with
the Outdoor Clothing unbearable. He was thus forced to
resign.
Outdoor Clothing claims that Peaflor voluntarily
resigned from his work and his contrary allegations were
all unsubstantiated. The HRD was not singled out for
retrenchment, but was simply the first to lose its staff
members because the company had to downsize. Thus, all
HRD work had to be performed by Peaflor. Instead of
being grateful that he was not among those immediately
dismissed due to the companys retrenchment program,
Peaflor unreasonably felt humiliated in performing work
that logically fell under his department insisted on having
a full staff complement absented himself from work
without official leave and demanded payment for his
unauthorized absences.
The Issue and The Courts Ruling
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
A preliminary contentious issue is Outdoor Clothings
argument that we should dismiss the petition outright
because it raises questions of facts, not the legal questions
that should be raised in a Rule 45 petition.16We see no
merit in this argument as the rule that a Rule 45 petition
deals only with legal issues is not an absolute rule it
admits of exceptions. In the labor law setting, we wade into
factual issues when conflict of factual findings exists
among the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA. This is the
exact situation that obtains in the present case since the
labor arbiter found facts supporting the conclusion that
there had been constructive dismissal, while the NLRCs
and the CAs factual findings contradicted the labor
arbiters findings.17 Under this situation, the conflicting
factual findings below are not binding on us, and we retain
the authority to pass on the evidence presented and draw
conclusions therefrom.18
The petition turns on the question of whether Peaflors
undisputed resignation was a voluntary or a forced one, in
the latter case making it a constructive dismissal
equivalent to an illegal dismissal. A critical fact necessary
in resolving this issue is whether Peaflor filed his
letter of resignation before or after the appointment
6/14
7/27/2016
of Buenaobra as the new/concurrent HRD manager.

This question also gives rise to the side issue of when
Buenaobras appointment was made. If the resignation
letter was submitted before Syfus appointment of
Buenaobra as new HRD manager, little support exists for
Peaflors allegation that he had been forced to resign due
to the prevailing abusive and hostile working environment.
Buenaobras appointment would then be simply intended to
cover the vacancy created by Peaflors resignation. On the
other hand, if the resignation letter was submitted after
the appointment of Buenaobra, then factual basis exists
indicating that Peaflor had been constructively dismissed
as his resignation was a response to the unacceptable
appointment of another person to a position he still
occupied.
The question of when Peaflor submitted his resignation
letter arises because this letterundisputably madewas
undated. Despite Peaflors claim of having impressive
intellectual and academic credentials,19 his resignation
letter, for some reason, was undated. Thus, the parties
have directly opposing claims on the matter. Peaflor
claims that he wrote and filed the letter on the same date
he made his resignation effectiveMarch 15, 2000.
Outdoor Clothing, on the other hand, contends that the
letter was submitted on March 1, 2000, for which reason
Syfu issued a memorandum of the same date appointing
Buenaobra as the concurrent HRD manager Syfus
memorandum cited Peaflors intention to resign so he
could devote his time to teaching. The company further
cites in support of its case Buenaobras March 3, 2000
memorandum accepting his appointment. Another piece of
evidence is the Syfu memorandum of March 10, 2000,
which informed the office of the appointment of Buenaobra
as the concurrent Head of HRDthe position that Peaflor
occupied. Two other memoranda are alleged to exist,
namely, the AWOL memoranda of March 6 and 11, 2000,
allegedly sent to Peaflor.
Several reasons arising directly from these pieces of
evidence lead us to conclude that Peaflor did indeed
submit his resignation letter on March, 15, 2000, i.e., on
the same day that it was submitted.
First, we regard the Syfu memorandum of March 1, 2000
and the memorandum of Buenaobra of March 3, 2000
accepting the position of HRD Head to be highly suspect. In
our view, these memoranda, while dated, do not constitute
conclusive evidence of their dates of preparation and
communication. Surprisingly, Peaflor was never informed
about these memoranda when they directly concerned him,
7/14
7/27/2016
particularly the turnover of responsibilities to Buenaobra if

indeed Peaflor had resigned on March 1, 2000 and a
smooth turnover to Buenaobra was intended. Even the
recipients of these communications do not appear to have
signed for and dated their receipt. The AWOL memoranda,
to be sure, should have been presented with proof of service
if they were to have any binding effect on Peaflor.
Second, we find it surprising that these pieces of
evidence pointing to a March 1, 2000 resignation
specifically, Syfus March 1, 2000 memorandum to
Buenaobra about Penaflors resignation and Buenaobras
own acknowledgment and acceptancewere only presented
to the NLRC on appeal, not before the labor arbiter. The
matter was not even mentioned in the companys position
paper filed with the labor arbiter.20 While the presentation
of evidence at the NLRC level on appeal is not unheard of
in labor cases,21 still sufficient explanation must be
adduced to explain why this irregular practice should be
allowed. In the present case, Outdoor Clothing totally
failed to explain the reason for its omission. This failure, to
us, is significant, as these were the clinching pieces of
evidence that allowed the NLRC to justify the reversal of
the labor arbiters decision.
Third, the circumstances and other evidence
surrounding Peaflors resignation support his claim that
he was practically compelled to resign from the company.
Foremost among these is the memorandum of March 10,
2000 signed by Syfu informing the whole office (To: All
concerned) about the designation of Buenaobra as
concurrent Accounting and HRD Manager. In contrast with
the suspect memoranda we discussed above, this
memorandum properly bore signatures acknowledging
receipt and dates of receipt by at least five company
officials, among them the readable signature of Demogene
and one Agbayani three of them acknowledged receipt on
March 13, 2000, showing that indeed it was only on that
day that the appointment of Buenaobra to the HRD
position was disclosed. This evidence is fully consistent
with Peaflors position that it was only in the afternoon of
March 13, 2000 that he was told, informally at that, that
Buenaobra had taken over his position. It explains as well
why as late as March 13, 2000, Peaflor still prepared and
signed a security report,22 and is fully consistent with his
position that on that day he was still working on the excuse
letter of certain sales personnel of the company.23We note
that the company only belatedly questioned the motivation
that Peaflor cited for his discriminatory treatment, i.e.,
that he was caught in the bitter fight between Syfu and
8/14
7/27/2016
Lee, then Vice President for Operations, that led the latter
to leave the company.24 After Lee left, Peaflor alleged that
those identified with Lee were singled out for adverse
treatment, citing in this regard the downsizing of HRD that
occurred on or about this time and which resulted in his
oneman HRD operation. We say this downsizing was only
alleged as the company totally faileddespite Penaflors
claim of discriminatory practiceto adduce evidence
showing that there had indeed been a legitimate
downsizing. Other than its bare claim that it was facing
severe financial problems, Outdoor Clothing never
presented any evidence to prove both the reasons for its
alleged downsizing and the fact of such downsizing. No
evidence was ever offered to rebut Peaflors claim that his
staff members were dismissed to make his life as HRD
Head difficult. To be sure, Peaflors participation in the
termination of his staff members employment cannot be
used against him, as the termination of employment was a
management decision that Peaflor, at his level, could not
have effectively contested without putting his own job on
the line.
Peaflors own service with the company deserves close
scrutiny. He started working for the company on
September 2, 1999 so that by March 1, 2000, his
probationary period would have ended and he would have
become a regular employee. We find it highly unlikely that
Peaflor would resign on March 1, 2000 and would then
simply leave given his undisputed record of having
successfully worked within his probationary period on the
companys Policy Manual, Personnel Handbook, Job
Expectations, and Organizational Setup. It does not
appear sound and logical to us that an employee would
tender his resignation on the very same day he was
entitled by law to be considered a regular employee,
especially when a downsizing was taking place and he
could have availed of its benefits if he would be separated
from the service as a regular employee. It was strange, too,
that he would submit his resignation on March 1, 2000 and
keep completely quiet about this development until its
effective date on March 15, 2000. In the usual course, the
turnover alone of responsibilities and work loads to the
successor in a small company would have prevented the
matter from being completely under wraps for 10 days
before any announcement was ever made. That Peaflor
was caught by surprise by the turnover of his post to
Buenaobra is in fact indicated by the companys own
evidence that Peaflor still submitted a security report on
March 13, 2000. On the whole, Peaflors record with the
9/14
7/27/2016
company is not that of a company official who would simply

and voluntarily tender a precipitate resignation on the
excuse that he would devote his time to teachinga lame
excuse at best considering that March is the month the
semester usually ends and is two or three months away
from the start of another school year.
In our view, it is more consistent with human experience
that Peaflor indeed learned of the appointment of
Buenaobra only on March 13, 2000 and reacted to this
development through his resignation letter after realizing
that he would only face hostility and frustration in his
working environment. Three very basic labor law principles
support this conclusion and militate against the companys
case.
The first is the settled rule that in employee termination
disputes, the employer bears the burden of proving that the
employees dismissal was for just and valid cause.25 That
Peaflor did indeed file a letter of resignation does not help
the companys case as, other than the fact of resignation,
the company must still prove that the employee voluntarily
resigned.26 There can be no valid resignation where the act
was made under compulsion or under circumstances
approximating compulsion, such as when an employees act
of handing in his resignation was a reaction to
circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign.27 In
sum, the evidence does not support the existence of
voluntariness in Peaflors resignation.Another basic
principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code
that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of
the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the
workingman. This principle has been extended by
jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by
the employer and the employee.28 As shown above, Peaflor
has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of
the companys case, particularly in the appreciation of the
clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions
were based. In such contest of evidence, the cited Article 4
compels us to rule in Peaflors favor. Thus, we find that
Peaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and
discriminatory working environment he found himself in,
particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness
against him that culminated in the appointment of another
HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Where no
less than the companys chief corporate officer was against
him, Peaflor had no alternative but to resign from his
employment.29Last but not the least, we have repeatedly
given significance in abandonment and constructive
dismissal cases to the employees reaction to the
10/14
7/27/2016
termination of his employment and have asked the

question: is the complaint against the employer merely a
convenient afterthought subsequent to an abandonment or
a voluntary resignation? We find from the records that
Peaflor sought almost immediate official recourse to
contest his separation from service through a complaint for
illegal dismissal.30 This is not the act of one who
voluntarily
resigned
his
immediate
complaints
characterize him as one who deeply felt that he had been
wronged.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitioners petition for
review on certiorari, and REVERSE the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 87865
promulgated on December 29, 2006 and March 14, 2007,
respectively. We REINSTATE the decision of the labor
arbiter dated August 15, 2001, with the MODIFICATION
that, due to the strained relations between the parties,
respondents are additionally ordered to pay separation pay
equivalent to the petitioners one months salary.
Costs against the respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Abad and Perez,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed. That
of the Labor Arbiter reinstated with modification.
Note.The consistent rule is that if doubts exist
between the evidence presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the
latter. (Acebedo Optical vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 527 SCRA 655 [2007])
o0o
*SECOND DIVISION.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with
Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes and Associate Justice
Enrico A. Lanzanas (retired), concurring Rollo, pp. 2231.
2Id., at p. 40.
3 Penned by Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo, and
concurred in by Commissioner Roy V. Seeres and
Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso Id., at pp. 85100.
4Id., at pp. 4552.
11/14
7/27/2016
5Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio.

6Rollo, p. 161.
7Id., at p. 66 the March 10, 2000 memorandum reads:
To: All concerned
From: Accounting Department
Date: March 10, 2000
Re: Human Resources Department
This is to inform you that Mr. Edwin Buenaobra is
concurrently our Accounting and Human Resources
Department Manager. Aside from his present task in
Accounting, he is now responsible to oversee the operation
of Human Resources Department, which includes
acquiring, motivating, maintaining, and developing people
in their jobs for the achievement of individual, company
and societys goal.
Any transaction and problems pertaining to Human
Resources can now be coursed through him. This memo
shall take effect immediately.
For your information and guidance.
Thank you.
Nathaniel Syfu
President and COO
Cc: All departments, Bulletin Board
8CA Rollo, p. 203 the resignation letter reads:
Mr. Nathaniel Y. Syfu
Chief Corporate Officer
Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation
Sir:
Please accept my irrevocable resignation effective at the
close of office on March 15, 2000.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Manolo A. Peaflor
9 Id., at p. 204.
10Supra note 4.
11 Rollo, p. 66 Syfus March 1, 2000 memorandum
reads:
To: Edwin Buenaobra
From: Nathaniel Syfu
Date: March 1, 2000
Subject: HR Manager Resignation
Mr. Manolo A. Peaflor has informed me of his intention
to resign effective March 15, 2000 to be a full time teacher
in a school he is presently connected with.
As such, due to the limited time provided, management
has no other alternative but to appoint you as concurrent
Human Resources Head to fill in the position of Manolo A.
Peaflor. We will formalize this announcement prior to
12/14
7/27/2016
March 15, 2000. Meanwhile, please coordinate with Manny

for the pending HR matters labor cases now with him. He
was already advised of this stopgap measure.
I trust you will handle this added assignment to the best
of your capacity.
Nathaniel Syfu
Chief Corporate Officer.
12Id., at p. 67.
13Supra note 3.
14Supra note 1.
15Supra note 2.
16Rules of Court, Rule 45, Section 1.
17 The labor arbiter cited the performance of clerical
and liaison work by an HRD manager and the appointment
of a new HRD manager as basis for concluding that
Peaflors resignation letter was involuntarily executed. On
the other hand, the NLRC declared the Peaflor tendered
his resignation because he saw no future in becoming a
regular employee because Outdoor Clothing was financially
unstable see Rollo, pp. 4951 and 9798.
18 R&E Transport, Inc. et al. v. Latag, 369 Phil. 1113
422 SCRA 698 (2004) Mendoza v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 467 Phil. 355 310 SCRA 846 (1999).
19Rollo, p. 9.
20CA Rollo, pp. 9195.
21 See PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., 329
Phil. 581 260 SCRA 758 (1996).
22Supra note 8.
23CA Rollo, p. 101.
24 Outdoor Clothing never disputed that there was a
fight between Syfu and Lee in any of the pleadings it filed
before the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA. It was only
in the Memorandum it filed before the Court that it denied
such allegation.
25Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Oberio, et
al., G.R. No. 168424, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 365.
26 Vicente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175988, August
24, 2007, 531 SCRA 240.
27 See Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 348 Phil. 334 284 SCRA 308
(1998).
28 Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 697 454 SCRA
737 (2005).
29Unicorm Safety Glass, Inc. v. Basarte, 486 Phil. 493
444 SCRA 287 (2004).
30 The records do not contain a categorical statement
13/14
7/27/2016
when the illegal dismissal complaint was actually filed

before the labor arbiter. Peaflor stated in his
Memorandum before the Court that it was filed on March
14, 2000a day after he learned of Buenaobras
appointment, but Outdoor Clothing stated in its appeal
with the NLRC that the complaint was filed on May 20,
2000. Either way, the Court believes that Peaflor sought
recourse against his illegal dismissal within a reasonable
period.
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
14/14

Penaflor v. Outdoor Clothing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penaflor v. Outdoor Clothing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/27/2016

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

valid resignation where the act was made under compulsion or

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

and (3) represent the company in labor cases or

Clothing effective at the close of office hours on March 15,

memorandum dated March 3, 2000 addressed to Syfu,

NLRC and the CA, he had been constructively dismissed

of Buenaobra as the new/concurrent HRD manager.

particularly the turnover of responsibilities to Buenaobra if

company is not that of a company official who would simply

termination of his employment and have asked the

5Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio.

March 15, 2000. Meanwhile, please coordinate with Manny

when the illegal dismissal complaint was actually filed

You might also like