VERONICA B. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND KONG HUA SCHOOL, RESPONDENTS.

In this petition for certiorari, the petitioner, a former school
teacher in the respondent Kong Hua School,
assails the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
dismissing her claim for separation pay.

Petitioner started teaching in the respondent school in August
1972.  She went on maternity leave
effective August 26 up to October 10,
1982.  In view of
complications resulting from the delivery of her child, she asked for a leave
extension and filed an application for indefinite leave of absence until such
time as she would be ready to report for work. 
On December 21, 1982,
she reported for work but was able to teach for only one day because she
suffered a nervous breakdown.  After the
Christmas vacation, she again filed an application for an indefinite leave of
absence because of poor health but this was disapproved by the school.  On September
13, 1983, upon the advice of the school principal, she submitted
the following letter:

“September 13, 1983

 Cagayan de Oro City

“The Director
Principal

Mr. Mike Goking

Kong
Hua School

Kauswagan,
Cagayan de Oro City

“S i r :

“I wish to get my two months vacation salary dated
April-May 1982.  In connection with this
am (sic) tendering my resignation as advised and wished by the administration
on conditions that I’ll be given priority to be accepted when the time comes
when I’ll be ready to render service to the school.  That I’ll be also in the same way considered
as an old employee not as newly hired teacher when I’ll be ready in service.

“Hope the administration will be true and sincere to their
promise.  It is also my wish that it will
be given as soon as possible because I need it very badly.

“Respectfully yours,

(SGD) VERONICA B.
REYES”

(p. 20, Rollo.)

Two weeks later, she sent her husband to the school to claim her
vacation pay.  On this occasion, the
letter quoted below was signed by her husband, for and in her behalf:

“September 28, 1983

Mr. Miguel C. Goking

Acting Director

Kong
Hua School

Cagayan
de Oro City

“S i r:

“In consideration that my ailment has rendered me physically
incapacitated to teach, I would like to inform you that I am tendering my
resignation effective October
15, 1982.

“Hoping for your most favorable and kind consideration on
this matter.

“Very truly
yours,

“(SGD)
VERONICA B. REYES

“Nota Bene:

“I am signing this resignation letter in behalf of my wife
Mrs. Veronica B. Reyes whose ailment has again relapsed as of this date and who
is at present not in the position of signing anything.

“BENJAMIN REYES

Husband”

(pp.
22, Rollo.)

Petitioner was then and there paid her two months vacation pay by
the school.

When the school opened in June 1985, the petitioner, who had in
the meantime fully regained her health, applied for reinstatement, but the
school refused to re-hire her.  Feeling
aggrieved, she filed a complaint for reinstatement, backwages
and other benefits with the NLRC in Cagayan de Oro City.  The labor
arbiter treated her complaint as a claim for separation pay and dismissed it
for lack of merit.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Labor Arbiter, petitioner
appealed to the NLRC on the sole ground that the labor arbiter erred in holding
that her resignation was voluntary.

On April 6, 1987,
the NLRC dismissed the appeal holding that since the petitioner had voluntarily
resigned from her teaching position and thereby severed the employer-employee
relationship, she is not entitled to any separation pay.

Petitioner came to this Court for relief.

After deliberating on the petition and the public and private
respondents’ comments, we find the petition meritorious.  The respondent NLRC committed a grave abuse
of discretion when it disregarded facts in the records proving that the
petitioner’s supposed “resignation” was involuntary, that it was in
fact procured by her employer on the promise that she would be given priority
for re-employment and in consideration of immediately paying her two months
vacation which she desperately needed then because she was ill.  As stated in her letter:  “I wish to get my two months vacation
salary dated April-May 1982.  In connection
with this am (sic) tendering my resignation as advised and wished by the
administration on conditions that I’ll be given priority to be accepted
when the time comes when I will be ready to render service to the school.”
In the same letter, she expressed the hope that the school administration
“will be true and sincere to their promise,” and that it would
release her vacation pay “as soon as possible because I need it very
badly.” (p. 20, Rollo.)
These circumstances prove beyond cavil that the petitioner was forced to resign.  Her resignation was involuntary.

The school had no right to disapprove petitioner’s application
for an indefinite leave of absence due to illness caused by the delivery of her
child and to force her to resign instead. 
Article 133(b) of the Labor Code provides:

“ART. 133(b).  The maternity leave shall be extended without
pay on account of illness medically certified to arise out of the pregnancy,
delivery, abortion, or miscarriage, which renders the woman unfit for work,
unless she has earned unused leave credits from which such extended leave may
be charged.”

The school must have realized that it could not dismiss the
petitioner for health reasons under Art. 284 of the Labor Code because
apparently her illness was not “prejudicial x x x as well x x x
to the health of her co-employees” nor the kind that would have legally
prohibited her continued employment, and, even if her service was terminable on
account of illness, the school would have been required to pay her
“separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half
(1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction
of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.”

Hence, it inveigled her to “resign” so it could avoid
paying her separation pay for her 10-year service to the school.

To extricate itself from its promise to re-hire her, the school
made her husband sign in her behalf an unconditional letter of resignation when
he went to the school to collect his wife’s vacation pay.  That letter is not binding on the petitioner
for there is no proof that she authorized her husband to write it for her and
to waive her right to be re-hired as promised by the school or to abandon her
right to separation pay if she would not be reinstated.

The school’s refusal in bad faith to re-employ her despite its
promise to do so, amounted to illegal dismissal.  Consequently, she is entitled to be
reinstated with three years backwages (People’s
Industrial & Commercial Employees & Workers Org. vs. People’s
Industrial & Commercial Corp., 112 SCRA 449; Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Co. vs. Encarnacion, 136 SCRA
256; Mercury Drug Co., Inc. vs. CIR, 56 SCRA 694).

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is
granted.  The resolution of the National
Labor Relations Commission dated April
6, 1987, and that of the Labor Arbiter dated May 29, 1985, are hereby reversed and set
aside.  Respondent
Kong Hua
School is ordered to reinstate the
petitioner to her former position as a teacher without loss of seniority, rank
and other benefits, and to pay her three (3) years backwages
from June 1985 when she re-applied for a teaching position.  If her reinstatement is no longer possible,
private respondent shall pay her, in addition to backwages,
separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service from
1972 to 1982, in lieu of reinstatement.  Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.