ROWEL S. PADERNAL, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, STI COLLEGE FAIRVIEW AND MARIA ROWENA BASILIO, RESPONDENTS.

Padernal versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Rowel Padernal against the National Labor Relations Commission, STI College Fairview, and Maria Rowena Basilio. Padernal, a faculty member of STI, was accused of irregularities in a liquidation report and, on the very day the investigating committee met, submitted an irrevocable resignation. He then sued for illegal dismissal, claiming he had been forced to resign. The case matters because it gathers in one place the rules on the proper mode of judicial review of labor commission decisions, the three material dates a certiorari petition must allege, the timeliness of such a petition, and the test for voluntary resignation as against constructive dismissal.

Procedural History

Padernal filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, with a prayer for separation pay, unpaid wages, moral and exemplary damages, before the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, holding that Padernal had not been constructively dismissed but had opted to resign pending the committee's investigation. Padernal appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the labor arbiter. His motion for reconsideration was denied. He then came to the Supreme Court, first by a pleading captioned a petition for review and later by an amended petition for certiorari, asking the Court to reverse the commission.

Facts

STI hired Padernal as a faculty member on a part-time full-load status in June 2008. Aside from teaching, he conducted training programs for STI faculty members on a service contract basis. The last such program, a teaching skills training held in Sta. Maria, Bulacan in June 2011, was the source of his troubles. When he submitted his liquidation report on July 1, 2011, he attached the hotel's official receipt for the full accommodation of 7,500 pesos, instead of the 4,000 peso receipt issued by the Sta. Maria branch corresponding to the headquarters' share, leaving an unaccounted charge of 3,500 pesos.

On November 21, 2011, Padernal received a show cause memorandum for misappropriation of company funds, falsification, and tampering of vouchers and receipts. Two days later he answered in writing, calling the discrepancy an unintentional and honest mistake and admitting negligence. A committee was convened on November 28, 2011, and met again on December 5, 2011, with Padernal, school officials, and the lawyer for STI headquarters present. Padernal alleged that the lawyer told him the committee had found him guilty and advised him to resign, and that after an altercation he replied, then terminate me.

On that same day, December 5, 2011, Padernal submitted an irrevocable resignation letter, which he had personally drafted and which thanked STI for the opportunity of being part of the institution. Three days later he filed his complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari was the proper mode of appeal from the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.
• Whether or not the petition alleged the material dates required for a petition for certiorari.
• Whether or not the petition was filed within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not Padernal was illegally dismissed, or whether he voluntarily resigned.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as the decision frames the remedy, requires a petition for certiorari to be filed within a fixed period. The Court applied it to count the days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The text as quoted in the decision is the rule on the three material dates, taken from the Court's own ruling in Tambong versus R. Jorge Development Corporation:

There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; and third, when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure of petitioner to comply with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the Rules.

This governed the second ground for dismissal, because Padernal's petition stated none of the three dates.

Circular Number 2-90, dated March 9, 1990, supplies the consequence of choosing the wrong remedy:

An appeal taken to either Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.

This governed the first ground, because Padernal came by petition for review rather than by certiorari.

On the merits, the Court quoted the resignation letter itself as the central piece of evidence:

This is to tender my irrevocable resignation effective today, December 5, 2011. It has been a challenging experience working at STI Fairview for almost four years. With those fruitful years, I may say, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity of being a part of your institution.

This letter was the overt act of relinquishment from which the Court inferred the intent to resign.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that judicial review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission must be sought through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, filed initially in the Court of Appeals in observance of the hierarchy of courts, following St. Martin Funeral Home versus National Labor Relations Commission. Padernal's pleadings were captioned and described as a petition for review, and they imputed no grave abuse of discretion to the commission. He argued only his version of the facts, already rejected below. Having availed of the wrong mode of appeal, the petition warranted outright dismissal under Circular Number 2-90.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition alleged none of the three essential dates, and that substantial compliance would not suffice in a matter involving strict observance of the Rules.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petition was filed out of time. The denial of reconsideration was received on September 5, 2012, so the petition was due on November 4, 2012; that day fell on a Sunday, moving the deadline to November 5, 2012. The first petition was filed on November 7, 2012 and the amended petition on November 29, 2012, both beyond the period. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

On the fourth issue, the Court nonetheless ruled on the merits and held that Padernal voluntarily resigned and was not constructively dismissed. Factual findings of labor officials, supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality. Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, and the overt act must be coupled with an intent to relinquish, inferable from the employee's acts before and after. Padernal personally drafted a clear, concise, and categorical resignation letter, and its expressions of gratitude belied his claim of coercion. The Court cited its ruling in Globe Telecom versus Crisologo:

Coercion exists when there is a reasonable or well-grounded fear of an imminent evil upon a person or his property or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants.

No such situation existed. The burden of proof lay on Padernal, and he failed to discharge it. His complaint for illegal dismissal was a mere afterthought, filed not to return to work but to claim separation pay. The employer's failure to pursue the investigation to the end did not cast doubt on the voluntariness of the resignation.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is reviewed by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, filed initially in the Court of Appeals, not by a petition for review, and an appeal taken by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. Second, a petition for certiorari must state the three material dates, namely the date of receipt of the judgment or final order or resolution, the date the motion for reconsideration was filed, and the date of receipt of the denial, and substantial compliance will not suffice. Third, the petition must be filed within the reglementary period, and perfection within that period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Fourth, resignation requires an overt act of relinquishment coupled with the intent to relinquish, and the intent is inferred from the employee's acts before and after. Fifth, bare allegations of constructive dismissal, uncorroborated by evidence, cannot be given credence, for the burden of proof rests on the party who makes the allegation. Expressions of gratitude in a resignation letter belie claims of coercion.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed and the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission were affirmed, so Padernal lost and his claim of illegal dismissal failed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a resignation letter that thanks the employer cannot be the product of coercion. Examiners use this case for the procedural traps of Rule 65, the three material dates, and the distinction between voluntary resignation and constructive dismissal.