9/13/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

G.R. No. 185269. June 29, 2010.*

ELSA S. MALIG-ON, petitioner, vs. EQUITABLE
GENERAL SERVICES, INC., respondent.

Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Illegal

Dismissals; The rule in termination cases is that the
employer bears the burden of proving that he dismissed his
employee for a just cause; When the employer claims that
the employee resigned from worked, the burden

* SECOND DIVISION.

327

VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 327

Malig-on vs. Equitable General Services, Inc.

is on the employer to prove that he did so willingly.The

rule in termination cases is that the employer bears the
burden of proving that he dismissed his employee for a just
cause. And, when the employer claims that the employee
resigned from work, the burden is on the employer to prove
that he did so willingly. Whether that is the case would
largely depend on the circumstances surrounding such
alleged resignation. Those circumstances must be
consistent with the employees intent to give up work.
Same; Same; An illegally dismissed employee is entitled
to two reliefs: back wages and reinstatement.An illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages
and reinstatement. Still, the Court has held that the grant
of separation pay, rather than reinstatement, may be
proper especially when the latter is no longer practical or
will be for the best interest of the parties, as in this case.
Same; Same; Backwages; Backwages represent
compensation that should have been earned but were not
collected because of the unjust dismissal.Backwages
represent compensation that should have been earned but
were not collected because of the unjust dismissal. Malig-on
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e79658f54d31675c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
9/13/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

can be said to be entitled to reinstatement from the time

she was constructively dismissed in August 2002 until the
NLRC ordered her immediate reinstatement in February
2005, a period of two years and six months. For this she is
entitled to backwages.

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.
Public Attorneys Office for petitioner.
Apolinario N. Lomabao, Jr. for respondent.

ABAD, J.:
This case is about an employee who was considered
illegally dismissed notwithstanding the fact that she filed a
written resignation from her work.

328

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Malig-on vs. Equitable General Services, Inc.

The Facts and the Case

Petitioner Elsa Malig-on (Malig-on) claimed that on
March 4, 1996 respondent Equitable General Services, Inc.
(the company) hired her as janitress in its janitorial
services. The company paid her P250.00 per day for a nine-
hour work. After six years or on February 15, 2002 Malig-
ons immediate supervisor told her that the company would
be assigning her to another client. But it never did despite
several follow-ups that she made. Eight months later or on
October 15, 2002 the company told Malig-on that she had
to file a resignation letter before it would reassign her. She
complied but the company reneged on its undertaking,
prompting Malig-on to file a complaint against it for illegal
dismissal.
The company denied Malig-ons allegations. It claimed
that she just stopped reporting for work on February 16,
2002 without giving any reason. Consequently, the
company wrote her two letters, first on August 23, 2002
and again on September 2, 2002, asking her to explain her
continued absence. On October 15, 2002 Malig-on showed
up at the companys office and submitted her resignation
letter.
On January 26, 2004 the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a
decision, finding Malig-ons resignation valid and binding.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e79658f54d31675c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
9/13/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

But the LA ordered the company to pay her emergency cost

of living allowance and the balance of her 13th month pay.
On February 28, 2005 the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) reversed the LAs decision and ruled
that the company had constructively dismissed Malig-on.
The NLRC ordered the company to reinstate Malig-on with
full backwages from the time the company illegally
dismissed her up to the date of the finality of its decision.
The respondent company went up to the Court of
Appeals (CA) to challenge the NLRC decision. On July 16,
2008 the CA reversed the NLRCs ruling and reinstated
that of the LA, hence, this petition by Malig-on.
329

VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 329

Malig-on vs. Equitable General Services, Inc.

The Issue Presented

The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in
holding that petitioner Malig-on abandoned her work and
eventually resigned from it rather than that respondent
company constructively dismissed her.
The Rulings of the Court
True, courts give great weight and respect to the facts as
found by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. But
when, as in this case, such bodies have conflicting factual
findings, the Court has reason to go over both findings to
ascertain which one has support in the evidence.[1]
The rule in termination cases is that the employer bears
the burden of proving that he dismissed his employee for a
just cause.[2] And, when the employer claims that the
employee resigned from work, the burden is on the
employer to prove that he did so willingly.[3] Whether that
is the case would largely depend on the circumstances
surrounding such alleged resignation. Those circumstances
must be consistent with the employees intent to give up
work.[4]
Here, the company claims that Malig-on voluntarily
resigned, gave a letter of resignation that she wrote with
her own hand, used the vernacular language, and signed it.
But these are not enough. They merely prove that she
wrote that letter, a thing that she did not deny. She was
quick to point

_______________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e79658f54d31675c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
9/13/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

[1] Emcor Incorporated v. Sienes, G.R. No. 152101, September 8, 2009,

598 SCRA 617, 631-632.
[2] Polymedic General Hospital v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. L-64190, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 420, 424.
[3] Mobile Protective &Detective Agency v. Ompad, 497 Phil. 621, 634-
635; 458 SCRA 308, 323 (2005).
[4] Fortuny Garments v. Castro, G.R. No. 150668, December 15, 2005,
478 SCRA 125, 130.

330

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Malig-on vs. Equitable General Services, Inc.

out that she wrote it after being told that she needed to
resign so she could be cleared for her next assignment.
According to the company, Malig-on simply dropped out
of sight one day on February 16, 2002 for no reason at all.
Eight months later or on October 15, 2002 she appeared at
the companys office and tendered her resignation. To the
companys surprise, three days later or on October 18, 2002
she went to the NLRC office and filed her complaint
against the company for illegal dismissal. Clearly, however,
these circumstances do not sound consistent with
resignation freely made.
First, when Malig-on reportedly dropped out of sight and
the company had no idea about the reason for it, the
natural and right thing for it to do was investigate why she
had suddenly vanished. Indeed, the company needed to
write Malig-on immediately and ask her to explain in
writing why she should not be considered to have
abandoned her job so the company may be cleared of its
responsibility as employer. This did not happen here.
Second, if Malig-on had abandoned her work and had no
further interest in it, there was no reason for her to
suddenly show up at her former place of work after eight
months and file her resignation letter. Her action would
make sense only if, as she claimed, she had been on
floating status for over six months and the company
promised to give her a new assignment if she would go
through the process of resigning and reapplying.
And, third, that Malig-on went to the NLRC to file a
complaint for unjust dismissal just three days after she
filed her alleged resignation letter is inconsistent with
genuine resignation.[5] It would make sense only if, as

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e79658f54d31675c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
9/13/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

Malig-on claims, the company tricked her into filing for

resignation upon a promise

_______________
[5] Villar v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil. 706, 714;
331 SCRA 686, 693 (2000).

331

VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 331

Malig-on vs. Equitable General Services, Inc.

to give her a new work assignment and failed to deliver

such promise.
The company evidently placed Malig-on on floating
status after being relieved as janitress in a clients
workplace. But, as the Court has repeatedly ruled, such act
of off-detailing Malig-on was not the equivalent of
dismissal so long as her floating status did not continue
beyond a reasonable time. But, when it ran up to more
than six months, the company may be considered to have
constructively dismissed her from work, that is, as of
August 16, 2002.[6] Thus, her purported resignation on
October 15, 2002 could not have been legally possible.
The company of course claims that it gave Malig-on
notices on August 23, 2002 and September 2, 2002, asking
her to explain her failure to report for work and informing
her that the company would treat such failure as lack of
interest in it, respectively. But these notices cannot
possibly take the place of the notices required by law. They
came more than six months after the company placed her
on floating status and, consequently, the company gave her
those notices after it had constructively dismissed her from
work.
An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs:
backwages and reinstatement.[7] Still, the Court has held
that the grant of separation pay, rather than
reinstatement, may be proper especially when the latter is
no longer practical or will be for the best interest of the
parties, as in this case.[8] Here, after her last work, Malig-
on did not appear persistent in getting rehired. Indeed, she
did not file any action for constructive dismissal after being
placed in a floating status for

_______________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e79658f54d31675c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
9/13/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

[6] Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Gonzalvo, Jr., G.R. No. 159293,
December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 298, 308.
[7] Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, G.R. No. 178524,
January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 500, 507.
[8] Velasco v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 161694,
June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 686, 699.

332

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Malig-on vs. Equitable General Services, Inc.

more than six months. If she were to be believed, it was

only eight months later that she showed keen interest in
being taken back by following an advice that she first
tender her resignation in order to clear up her record prior
to being rehired.
After just three days from tendering her resignation,
Malig-on hastened to the NLRC and accused her employer
of illegal dismissal. Under the circumstances, her
reinstatement to her former position would only result in a
highly hostile work environment for the parties and might
further worsen their relations which are already scarred by
the present case. The NLRC should have just awarded
Malig-on separation pay instead of ordering the company to
reinstate her.
Backwages represent compensation that should have
been earned but were not collected because of the unjust
dismissal.[9] Malig-on can be said to be entitled to
reinstatement from the time she was constructively
dismissed in August 2002 until the NLRC ordered her
immediate reinstatement in February 2005, a period of two
years and six months. For this she is entitled to backwages.
But since, as already stated, the circumstances already
rule out actual reinstatement, she is entitled to separation
pay at the rate of one month for every year of service from
1996, when she began her employment to 2005, when she is
deemed to have been actually separated from work, a
period of nine years, both amountsthe backwages and the
separation payto bear interest of 6 percent per annum
until fully paid.[10]
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and
REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July
16, 2008 and its resolution dated November 7, 2008 in CA-
G.R. SP 100811, and REINSTATES the decision of the

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e79658f54d31675c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
9/13/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

National Labor Relations Commission dated February 28,

2005 and its

_______________
[9] Golden Ace Builders v. Talde, G.R. No. 187200, May 5, 2010 620
SCRA 283
[10] Id.

333

VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 333

Malig-on vs. Equitable General Services, Inc.

resolution dated July 24, 2007 in NLRC NCR CA 039509-

04, with the following MODIFICATION: respondent
Equitable General Services, Inc. is directed to pay
petitioner Elsa S. Malig-on backwages inclusive of
allowances, other benefits or their monetary equivalent,
from the time she was constructively dismissed in August
2002 until the NLRC ordered her immediate reinstatement
in February 2005, a period of two years and six months
and, in addition, separation pay at the rate of one month
for every year of service from 1996 when she began her
employment to 2005, when her service to the company
technically ended, a period of nine years, both amounts
the backwages and the separation payto bear interest of
6 percent per annum from February 2005 until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Nachura, Peralta and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed.

Note.The two reliefs granted to illegally or

constructively dismissed employee are separate and
distinct from each other and are awarded conjunctively.
(Siemens Philippines, Inc vs. Domingo, 560 SCRA 86
[2008])

o0o

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e79658f54d31675c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
9/13/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e79658f54d31675c4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8