Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Manila City

ANNA DELVEY, NLRC CASE NO. RAB-III-03-42431-20

Complainant,

- versus -

STEINS GATE CONSTRUCTION INC. (SGCI),

Respondent/s.

x------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

COMPLAINANT by the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Labor Arbitration Office, most respectfully submits this
position paper and avers the following to wit:

THE PARTIES

The Complainant in this case is ANNA DELVEY, of legal age,

Filipino, married, with post office address at Barangay 7-A, 477 Alley,
General Malvar St., Davao city, where she may be served with summons
and other legal processes of this Honorable Office.

The Respondent is STEINS GATE CONSTRUCTION INC. (SGCI), a

business establishment of Housewares, with business address at Brgy.
Sandawa, Phase 2, Davao City. The latter also employed Ms. Mayuri
Shina who was the company’s General Manager. Respondents can be
served with summons and other legal processes through the
undersigned counsel.

1 | Page
 NATURE OF THE CASE

This is the case filed against the Employer/ Respondent STEINS

GATE CONSTRUCTION INC. (SGCI) for the constructive dismissal of the
complainant MS. ANNA DELVEY.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Complainant was a former employee who was hired as a
Human Resource Manager at the Steins Gate Construction Inc. (SGCI)
since March 8, 2011. Last July 1, 2021, complainant was accused of
perjury by their General Manager, Ms. Mayuri Shina in affixing her
signature without consent for her travel order form.

The Complainant proved her innocence from the accusation,

through the assistance of the Philippine National Police crime
laboratory who examined the issued travel order. However, even after
submitting the findings, and clearing her name, complainant claimed
and assumed that she became the subject of unnecessary ridicule in
their office.

On July 07, 2021 Ms. Delvey reported to work. While on duty,

their general manager approached and talked with her however, she
interpreted it differently and accused that Ms. Shina stormed and
exclaimed remarks which put her in a humiliating position which
accordingly forced her to resign.

The Respondent disaffirm the above-stated allegation of Ms.

Delvey. The complainant voluntarily resigned from work. The
contention of the complainant also holds no ground, for there is no
proof of her claim, otherwise this was just a baseless accusation.

The respondent with all good faith believed and banked its
argument on the tenor of the complainant’s resignation letter consisting
words of gratitude and well-wishes, her completion of the exit interview
form and the clearance procedure, as well as her signing of waiver and
quitclaim. The complainant also reasoned out that her reason for
leaving was to work for another company for greener pasture.

The responded herein also contend and question the belated filing
of the complaints for constructive dismissal.

2 | Page
 ISSUES

The following are the issues to be resolved by the Honorable

Labor Arbiter, to wit:
1. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT’S RESIGNATION IS VOLUNTARY;
2. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT’S RELEASE WAIVER AND
QUITCLAIM IS VALID;
3.WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT BELATEDLY FILED A
COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

FIRST ISSUE: ANNA DELVEY’S (COMPLAINANT) RESIGNATION WAS

VOLUNTARY.

As defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Gan vs. Galderama

Philippines Inc. et.al., resignation is the voluntary act of an employee
who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other
choice but to dissociate oneself from employment. It is a formal
pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, with the intention of
relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of relinquishment.

Notably in her resignation letter, Anna Delvey used words of

gratitude and well wishes which would indicate that she was not
constructively dismissed and that her resignation was voluntary. Based
on the foregoing facts, the tenor of those resignation letter, wherein
Anna allegedly expressed her profound gratitude to the officers of the
company and at the same time, her resignation letter clearly indicated
that her desire to work for another company as her main reason for
resigning.

In the case of Panasonic vs Pecson GR 206316, March 20,2019, the

court held that Peckson's resignation was voluntary and, thus,
Panasonic is not guilty of constructive dismissal. While the fact of filing
a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of proof, and it is still
incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily
resigned, in this case, the facts show that the resignation letters are

3 | Page
grounded in Pecson's desire to leave the company as opposed to any
deceitful machination or coercion on the part of Panasonic.

The very contents of the letters show not only any lack of
reluctance or tension on the part of Pecson, but in fact express gratitude
and well wishes without qualification, nor do they show any sign of
aggression, bitterness, or hostility towards his former employer. In the
foregoing case, it is clear that Anna was thankful and appreciable to her
previous company and her colleagues. This could be proved in her
resignation letter where she used words of gratitude and well-wishers
when she could have directly said that she wanted to resign if she felt
she was abused and ridiculed. If she really contends that she felt abused,
she could have submitted a proof of claim to back up her contentions.

In Bilbao v. Saudi Arabian Airlines. the Court found “as voluntary

the resignation of the complainant, whose clear use of words of
appreciation and gratitude negated the notion that she was forced and
coerced to resign.” Likewise, the Court held in Rodriguez v. Park N Ride
Inc., et al., “that the petitioner-employee voluntarily resigned as
evidenced in part by her submission of two resignation letters
containing words of gratitude.” Guided with this legal precepts, a review
of the facts on record will show that Anna’s resignation is voluntary and
that SGCI did not constructively dismissed her.

SECOND ISSUE: EFFECTS OF RELEASE WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM

Anna Delvey’s release waiver and quitclaim is valid.

The Supreme Court defined quitclaims, waivers and releases as,

legal documents signed by employees who absolve their employers
from all liability including: 1.) Monetary claims; and/or 2.) Illegal
dismissal. Quitclaims are contracts in the nature of a compromise where
parties make concessions, a lawful device to avoid litigation. It is a valid
and binding agreement between the parties, provided that it constitutes
a credible and reasonable settlement and the one accomplishing it has
done so voluntarily and with a full understanding of its importance. (F.F
Cruz & Co. Inc. vs Galandez G.R No. 236496 July 8, 2019)

From the foregoing facts, Anna Delvey signed her release waiver
and quitclaim to finalize her resignation with SGCI. This is an explicit
indication of her will to absolve her employer from any liability
including monetary claims and illegal dismissal. Likewise, her signature
to these legal documents proved her voluntariness in executing these
legal documents and prove their authenticity.
4 | Page
 In Periquet vs NLRC, the Supreme Court set the guidelines and the
current doctrinal policy regarding quitclaims and waivers, as follows:

“Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public

policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a
reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be
disowned simple because of a change of mind. It is only where there is
clear proof that the waiver was wrangled from an unsuspecting or
gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its
face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But
where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily,
with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for
quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized
as a valid and biding undertaking.”

In addition, in the case of Arlo Aluminium, Inc. vs Pinon, the court

enumerated the requisites for a deed of release, waiver or quitclaim
which are as follows:

1.) That there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties;
2.) That the consideration for the quitclaim is sufficient and
reasonable; and,
3.) That the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person
with a right recognized by law.
Applying the rulings to this case, Anna Delvey voluntarily signed the
release waiver or quitclaim and undergone an exit interview. The
contents of her resignation letter and exit interview form, emphasized
her gratitude and a search for a greener pasture, it is clearly established
that the release waiver and quitclaim was voluntarily signed by Anna
Delvey and that all requisites for a valid release waiver and quitclaim
has been founded.

Furthermore, it is clear in the facts that Anna Delvey is a Human

Resource Manager and not just an ordinary worker who can easily be
coerced or intimidated into signing something against her will. She
knew the nature of the documents that she signed and the possible
effects that these document may produce when executed.

In Dionisio F. Auza, Jr., Adessa F. Otarra, and Elvie Jean Jaque. vs.
MOL Philippines, Inc. and Cesar G. Tiutan, the court held that:

“Their standing in society depicts how highly educated and

intelligent persons they are as to know fully well the consequences of
5 | Page
their acts in executing and signing letters of resignation and quitclaims.
Although quitclaims are generally against public policy, voluntary
agreements entered into and represented by a reasonable settlement
are binding on the parties which may not be later disowned simply
because of a change of mind. "It is only where there is clear proof that
the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the
terms of the settlement are unconscionable, that the law will step in to
bail out the employee Hence, we uphold the validity of the quitclaims
signed by petitioners in exchange for the separation benefits they
received from respondents.”

In Poseidon International Maritime Services Inc., vs Tamala, when

an employer has shown that the employees wilfully and voluntarily
signed the quitclaims, the burden of proving the claim is shifted to the
employee otherwise.

In these lights and in the absence of any evidence showing that

fraud, deception or misrepresentation attended the execution of the
waiver and quitclaim, it is sufficiently convincing that a valid waiver and
quitclaim has been completed.

THIRD ISSUE: WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT BELATEDLY FILED A

COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

Steins Gate Construction Inc. (SGCI) should not be liable for

illegal dismissal.

From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the defiling of the

complainant for illegal dismissal was belated. Anna Delvey (employee),
belatedly filed a complaint for illegal Dismissal against Steins Gate
Construction Inc. (SGCI) (employer) on September 5, 2022, one year
after her voluntary resignation. On the other hand, the resignation of
Anna Delvey was voluntary. The contents of her resignation letter and
exit interview form, emphasized her gratitude and a search for a
greener pasture The contents of her resignation letter and exit

6 | Page
interview form, emphasized her gratitude and a search for a greener
pasture.

In the case of Ariola vs. Pilipino Star, the prescriptive

period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the
time the cause of action accrued. This four-year prescriptive period, not
the three-year period for filing money claims under Article 291 of the
Labor Code, applies to claims for backwages and damages due to illegal
dismissal. But on contrary, Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco
decided the case. At the outset, she ruled that laches had set in,
emphasizing that Arriola took three years and one day to file his
complaint. According to the Labor Arbiter, this was "contrary to the
immediate and natural reaction of an aggrieved person." If Arriola were
indeed aggrieved, he would not have waited three years and one day to
sue Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 300 of Presidential

Decree 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines), as amended and
renumbered, "An employee may terminate without just cause the
employer-employee relationship by serving a written notice on the
employer at least one (1) month in advance. xxx" On the other hand,
dismissal is involuntary on the part of the employee as it connotes
termination of employment initiated by the employer on account of just
or authorized cause provided under Articles 297-299 of the Labor
Code of the Philippines. Based on their nature alone, resignation and
illegal dismissal are incompatible. As such, an employee who
voluntarily resigns from work and files a complaint later on for illegal
dismissal will have no legal ground to stand on.

This is also in accordance with the ruling in the case of

Susan M. Bance, et al. v. University of Saint Anthony and Santiago

7 | Page
Ortega, Jr., GR 202724, Feb. 3, 2021, where the Supreme Court
speaking through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando stated that:

"Resignation is the formal pronouncement or

relinquishment of a position or office. It is the
voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation
where he believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and
he has then no other choice but to disassociate himself
from employment. The intent to relinquish must
concur with the overt act of relinquishment; hence,
the acts of the employee before and after the alleged
resignation must be considered in determining
whether he in fact intended to terminate his
employment. In illegal dismissal cases, it is a
fundamental rule that when an employer interposes
the defense of resignation, on him necessarily rests the
burden to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily
resigned.”'

"xxx The Court holds that petitioners' voluntary resignation

effectively rendered their complaints for illegal dismissal without any
basis. Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. v. Siason discusses the concept
of resignation:
Based on the above-quoted decision, the
employer-employee relationship will be severed
when an employee voluntarily resigns from his or
her work, or when he believes that personal reasons
cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the
service. To determine the intent of the employee to
terminate the relation, his or her acts before and

8 | Page
 after the alleged resignation will be considered.
Further, the voluntariness of the act will be
confirmed. If both are present, the resignation of
the employee will effectively render the subsequent
complaint for illegal dismissal without any basis.

Furthermore, in the case of Panasonic Marketing

Philippines Incorporation v. John Peckson, the Court disagrees with
the finding of the CA that Panasonic failed to prove that Peckson
resigned out of his own volition and without any outside influence from
the company. As such, since Peckson resigned willingly, Panasonic was
not guilty of the constructive dismissal filed by Peckson.

In the case of Anna Delvey, the intention to resign is clear.

Nonetheless, the voluntariness of the act may be questioned depending
on the underlying facts. If you are resigning simply to avoid being
terminated due to the implication in an offense or humiliation against
your colleagues in the company, then your act could be considered as
voluntary. In essence, Steins Gate Construction Inc. (SGCI) argues that
the facts show the completely voluntary nature attendant to Anna
Delvey’s resignation, and that the filing of a complaint for illegal
dismissal was merely an afterthought. According to Steins Gate
Construction Inc. (SGCI), the circumstances likewise provide the true
state of mind of Anna Delvey at the time of her resignation, buoyed by
his pleasant relationship with the colleagues of the company.

Moreover, in the case of PLDT v. Pingol, respondent Pingol

never made any written extrajudicial demand. Thus, the claimed
"follow-ups" could not have validly tolled the running of the
prescriptive period. It is worthy to note that respondent never
presented any proof to substantiate his allegation of follow-ups.

9 | Page
Applying the Doctrine of Laches, the court ruled that respondent
Pingol has no one but himself to blame for his own predicament. By his
own allegations in his complaint, he has barred his remedy and
extinguished his right of action. Although the Constitution is committed
to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it
does not necessary follow that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. The management also has its
own rights. Out of Its concern for the less privileged in life, this Court,
has more often than not inclined, to uphold the cause of the worker in
his conflict with the employer. Such leaning, however, does not blind
the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be
dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and
doctrine.

Taken cumulatively and guided with legal concepts, negate

any indication that Anna Delvey never seeks relief and follow-ups
during those prescriptive period. Moreover, she did not assert under
any duress when she resigned, contrary to her assertions. Thus, Anna
Delvey’s resignation was voluntary. Because of the same, Steins Gate
Construction Inc. (SGCI) cannot be held guilty of illegal dismissal.

CONCLUSION

While the rights of the workers, as with all human rights, must be
protected, the law does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction
of the employer. The constitutional commitment to the policy of social

10 | P a g e
justice cannot be understood to mean that every labor dispute shall
automatically be decided in favor of labor, especially when the
antecedent facts indicate the lack of malfeasance on the part of the
management. In the case, herein complainant failed to present. Guided
by these legal precepts, a judicious review of the facts on record will
show that SGCI was able to show voluntary resignation.

First, the company aptly proved that Ms. Delvey’s resignation letters
showed the voluntariness of her separation from the company wherein
she even expressed her gratitude and well-wishes to her employer. This
contradicts to her contention for her forced resignation or constructive
dismissal.
Second, Anna Delvey signed her release waiver and quitclaim to finalize
her resignation with SGCI. This is an explicit indication of her will to
absolve her employer from any liability including monetary claims and
illegal dismissal. Likewise, her signature to these legal documents
proved her voluntariness in executing these legal documents and prove
their authenticity. The contents of her resignation letter and exit
interview form, emphasized her gratitude and a search for a greener
pasture, it is clearly established that the release waiver and quitclaim
was voluntarily signed by Anna Delvey and that all requisites for a valid
release waiver and quitclaim has been founded.

Third, Ms. Delvey’s belated filing of a complaint highlight the lack of

merit to his accusations, especially as she was unable to give any
valid reason why she hesitated in filing the same.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Office that the instant cases against the Respondents be

11 | P a g e
dismissed for lack of merit. Other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises are also prayed of.

Davao City, Philippines. July 7, 2021.

MAYURI SHINA
Respondent/SGCI Representative

Assisted by:

____

Counsel for the Respondents

IBP No. 135843/12-19-2021/Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0009829-June 7, 2018
TORREÑ A LAW OFFICE
NB Mercado Bldg.,
Mac Arthur Highway corner Sandawa
Matina, Davao City
Telephone No. (082) 293-0638
Email Address: [email protected]

VERIFICATION
I, MS. MAYURI SHINA, of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident
of Davao City, Philippines, duly authorized representative by SGCI ,after
having been sworn to in accordance with the law, hereby depose and
say:

1. That I am ONE OF the respondents in the above-entitled cases;

2. That I caused the preparation of this Position Paper;
3. That I have read said Position Paper and I understand the same
and all its contents are true and correct of my personal knowledge
and/or authentic documents;
4. That this is not filed to HARASS, CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAY,
OR NEEDLESSLY INCREASE the cost of litigation, and the factual
allegations therein have EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT or, if specifically
identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after reasonable
opportunity for discovery.

12 | P a g e
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand this
____day of July 2021 at Davao City, Philippines.

MAYURI SHINA.
Affiant/SGCI REPRESENTATVE

SUBCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____day of July 2021 at

Davao City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me her CTC/Proof of
Identity as indicated above.

Copy furnished:

-ANNA DELVEY
Complainant
Brgy. General Malvar, Davao City

13 | P a g e