RENANTE P. ARANETA, JOSE F. LOZANO, JR., JUMEL Q. OBEDICEN AND ROEN P. LAZARO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), AND PURITAN INDUSTRIAL SECU…

Araneta versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by four security guards, Renante Araneta, Jose Lozano, Jr., Jumel Obedicen and Roen Lazaro, against the National Labor Relations Commission and their former employer, Puritan Industrial Security Agency. The guards ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's finding that they had already been paid their salaries for January 2012 and March 2012, and that they are not entitled to separation pay. The case matters because it gathers in one place the standards a bar candidate must command: the narrow scope of certiorari against labor tribunals, the meaning of substantial evidence, the evidentiary weight of computer-generated payroll records, and the rule that a voluntarily resigning employee earns no separation pay.

Procedural History

The guards and their co-complainants filed separate complaints for unpaid salaries, thirteenth month pay, separation pay, retirement benefits and refund of cash deposits before the labor arbiter. The cases were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter Adolfo Babiano. In a decision dated October 30, 2012, the labor arbiter ordered the agency to refund cash deposits and pay unpaid thirteenth month pay and salaries, and dismissed all other claims for lack of merit. The guards appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which in a resolution dated September 30, 2013 affirmed the labor arbiter subject to modifications: it corrected a name in the dispositive portion and additionally ordered payment of salaries for April 1 to 6, 2012. The guards moved for reconsideration. In a resolution dated December 27, 2013, the Commission approved an amicable settlement between one complainant, Racquel Chiefe, and the agency, and denied the guards' motion. The guards then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Facts

Puritan Industrial Security Agency supplied security guards to the SM Group of Companies. The four petitioners were hired on various dates and detailed at malls, supermarkets and retail outlets operated by SM. Beginning in 2011, the agency had difficulty collecting payments from SM, and the release of the guards' wages and benefits was delayed. SM's security affairs office demanded that the agency settle the unpaid salaries, and in March 2012 three SM affiliates and seven Watson branches served notices terminating their contracts with the agency.

On March 26, 2012, the guards tendered individual resignation letters all dated March 31, 2012. They were then absorbed by Right Eight Security Agency, the agency SM engaged after terminating its contract with Puritan. The guards later claimed they had been advised to resign on the promise of separation pay and retirement benefits, and that they had been constructively dismissed because of the repeated delays in their salaries.

The labor arbiter found that the agency had paid the January and March 2012 salaries of Araneta and Lazaro, relying on a letter to the bank debiting the agency's payroll account and on ATM payroll transactions showing credits and withdrawals. The Commission affirmed, adding salaries for April 1 to 6, 2012, and held that the guards had voluntarily resigned and so were not entitled to separation pay.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioners had been paid their salaries for the months of January 2012 and March 2012.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioners were not entitled to separation pay.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court governs the petition, and the Court states the settled rule on its office in labor cases:

The Court's power to review in this case is limited to questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or officials, and does not extend to an evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor officer or office based his or its determination.

This confines the Court to asking whether the Commission acted capriciously, not whether it weighed the evidence correctly.

The Court also fixes the measure of proof in labor proceedings:

It is basic that substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

This is the test against which the payroll records are measured.

On the claim for separation pay, the Court states the governing rule:

It is basic that an employee who voluntarily resigns from employment is not entitled to separation pay, except when it is stipulated in the employment contract or CBA, or it is sanctioned by established practice or policy of the employer.

Since no such stipulation or policy was alleged, the claim must fail.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the question raised was factual and therefore not a proper subject of certiorari. Even resolving the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion, because the Commission's resolutions were supported by substantial evidence. The agency had presented a letter to the bank debiting its payroll account for the January 2012 payroll, listing the guards including Araneta and Lazaro, and ATM payroll transactions bearing the bank's name, showing credits by the agency and withdrawals by the two guards on the corresponding dates. The Court distinguished the earlier case of Asuncion versus National Labor Relations Commission, where the handwritten listings and unsigned computer print-outs were unauthenticated; here the print-outs came from the bank and corresponded to actual withdrawals, which could only mean the salaries were received.

On the second issue, the Court held that the guards voluntarily resigned. Their resignation letters, all dated March 31, 2012 and worded alike save for the number of years of service, contained no ill will against the agency and plainly expressed an intention to resign. Apart from self-serving allegations, the guards offered no independent evidence of involuntariness, and there was no gap in their employment because they were immediately absorbed by the new agency. Absent any stipulation in the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, or an established employer policy granting separation pay, no separation pay was due.

Doctrine

First, a petition for certiorari against the National Labor Relations Commission reaches only questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion; it does not invite a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence. Second, substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, and computer-generated bank payroll records that bear the bank's name and correspond to actual withdrawals are entitled to evidentiary credit. Third, resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who relinquishes office with the intention of doing so, accompanied by the act of relinquishment; a claim of constructive dismissal must rest on independent evidence, not on self-serving assertions. Fourth, an employee who voluntarily resigns is not entitled to separation pay, except when it is stipulated in the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, or sanctioned by established practice or policy of the employer.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the Commission's resolutions of September 30, 2013 and December 27, 2013 were upheld.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an employee who voluntarily resigns is not entitled to separation pay, except when it is stipulated in the contract or collective bargaining agreement, or sanctioned by established practice or policy. Examiners use this case to test the limits of certiorari against labor tribunals and the substantial evidence standard applied to computer-generated payroll records.