SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 154376. September 30, 2005.]

ROBERTO T. DOMONDON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, VAN MELLE PHILS., INC. and
NIELS H.B. HAVE, respondents.

DECISION

PUNO, J :
p

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the

February 28, 2002 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65130
and its July 17, 2002 Resolution, 2 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The assailed Decision affirmed the rulings of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter, which held that petitioner was not
illegally dismissed but voluntarily resigned.
On November 20, 1998, petitioner Roberto T. Domondon filed a complaint
before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, Quezon City, against private
respondent Van Melle Phils., Inc. (VMPI) and its President and General Manager,
private respondent Niels H.B. Have. He claimed illegal dismissal and prayed for
reinstatement, payment of full backwages inclusive of allowances, 14th month
pay, sick and vacation leaves, share in the profits, moral and exemplary damages
and attorney's fees. 3
Petitioner alleged that on January 8, 1997, private respondent VMPI, a
manufacturing company engaged in the production and distribution of
confectionaries and related products, hired him as Materials Manager through its
then President and General Manager Victor M. Endaya. He was tasked to
supervise the Inventory Control, Purchasing, and Warehouse and Distribution
Sections of the company. He was given a guaranteed monthly salary of
ninety-eight thousand (P98,000.00) pesos for fourteen (14) months with annual
merit adjustment, profit sharing bonus from 0-2 months based on individual,
company and corporate performance, 4 and a brand new 1600cc Honda VTEC 5
Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

with 300 liters monthly gas allowance. 6

Petitioner claimed that things worked out well for him in the beginning
until Endaya was transferred to China in August 1997 and was replaced by private
respondent Have, a Dutch national. According to petitioner, private respondent
Have immediately set a one-on-one meeting with him and requested his courtesy
resignation. Alleging that the decision came from the Asia Regional Office,
private respondent Have wanted to reorganize and put his people in management.
Petitioner refused to resign and life got difficult for him. His decisions were
always questioned by private respondent Have. He was subjected to verbal abuse.
His competence was undermined by baseless and derogatory memos, which lay
the bases for his removal from the company. He also did not receive his 14th
month pay. 7
Petitioner further stated that the final straw came on June 10, 1998, in
another one-on-one meeting with private respondent Have. Private respondent
Have informed petitioner that things would get more difficult for him if he does
not resign. Private respondent Have threw a veiled threat at petitioner to the effect
that "a dignified resignation would be infinitely better than being fired for a
fabricated lawful cause." Private respondent Have offered financial assistance if
petitioner would leave peacefully but the offer must be accepted immediately or it
would be withdrawn. Thus, petitioner signed a "ready-made" resignation letter
without deliberation and evaluation of the consequences. His main concern then
was to prevent the "end of his professional career." 8
Petitioner stated that on the same day that he handed in his resignation
letter, private respondent VMPI posted a memorandum with information of his
replacement. He claimed that to lend a semblance of credibility to his forced
resignation, private respondents released to him a portion of the offered financial
package. 9
On their part, private respondents admitted hiring petitioner under the
circumstances set forth by him but denied illegally dismissing him. They
maintained that with his educational and professional background, petitioner could
not have been coerced and intimidated into resigning from the company. Instead,
they claimed that he voluntarily resigned "to embark on management consultancy
in the field of strategic planning and import/export." 10 They stated that petitioner
informed them about his intention to resign and requested a "soft landing"
financial support in the amount of three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos on
top of accrued benefits due him upon resignation. Private respondents granted the
request. Subsequently, however, petitioner proposed the transfer of ownership of
the car assigned to him in lieu of the financial assistance from the company. Since
company policy prohibits disposition of assets without valuable consideration, the
parties agreed that petitioner shall pay for the car with the P300,000.00 "soft
Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

landing" financial assistance from private respondent VMPI.

TAScID

Private respondents averred that petitioner, who was then in charge of the
disposition of the assets of the company, effected the registration of the car in his
name. 11 Joannes Cornelis Kuiten, then Vice-President for Finance, signed for the
company. 12 On July 30, 1998, P300,000.00 was credited to petitioner's payroll
account 13 but he did not use it to pay for the car as agreed upon. Repeated
demands for payment were unheeded. In its letter of demand dated October 28,
1998, private respondent VMPI gave petitioner an option to apply the P169,368.32
total cash conversion of his sick and vacation leave credits, 13th and 14th months'
pay less taxes as partial payment for the car and pay the balance of P130,631.68,
or return the car to the company. 14 Petitioner did not exercise either option.
Instead, on November 20, 1998, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
private respondents.
On June 14, 1999, the Labor Arbiter 15 ruled for private respondents, viz:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal
dismissal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit, and the claim for damages
and attorney's fees denied.
The complainant has the option to reconvey to respondents the car
sold to him and thus retain full credit of the P300,000.00 "soft landing"
assistance, or retain ownership of the car by paying respondents the
purchase price of P300,000.00 minus any amount due him corresponding to
his accrued benefits that has been applied by respondents as partial payment
for the car.

The NLRC affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter 16 on January 26,
2001 and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on March 5, 2001.
Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals on a special civil action for certiorari but
failed for the third time. The appellate court dismissed the petition on February 28,
2002 and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on July 17, 2002; hence,
this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner raises as error the failure of the appellate court to apply the rule
in termination of employment that the burden rests upon the employer to prove by
substantial evidence that the employee was removed for lawful or authorized
cause. He also questions the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter to resolve the issue
of the transfer of car-ownership by private respondents.
I.
The first issue raises factual matters which may not be reviewed by the
Court. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. Not being a trier of
Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

facts, the Court cannot re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of evidence
presented to the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which formed
the basis of the questioned decision and resolution. 17 Indeed, their findings when
in absolute agreement are accorded not only respect but even finality as long as
they are supported by substantial evidence. 18
In any event, we combed the records of the case at bar and found no
compelling reason to disturb the uniform findings and conclusions of the Court of
Appeals, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter. There was no arbitrary disregard or
misapprehension of evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if
properly appreciated. Petitioner's letter of resignation, his educational
attainment, and the circumstances antecedent and contemporaneous to the
filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal are substantial proof of petitioner's
voluntary resignation.
Petitioner's letter of resignation was categorical that he was resigning "to
embark on management consultancy in the field of strategic planning and
import/export." 19 Petitioner was holding a managerial position at private
respondent VMPI and he was previously Vice-President for strategic planning at
LG Collins Electronics. Thus, "management consultancy in the field of strategic
planning" was a logical reason for the resignation, which either petitioner or
private respondents may provide.
TSIEAD

"Import/export," whether inclusive or exclusive of the clause "managerial

consultancy," on the other hand, could neither be inferred from petitioner's nature
of work with private respondent VMPI nor from his past work experiences. Thus,
even if petitioner was correct in arguing that he could not have considered it given
the state of the country's economy, anyone may provide it as reason for the
resignation, including him and private respondents.
But assuming that private respondents prepared the letter of resignation for
petitioner to sign as claimed, the Court is not convinced that petitioner was
coerced and intimidated into signing it. Petitioner is no ordinary employee with
limited education. He has a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Economics from the
University of Santo Tomas, has completed academic requirements for Masters of
Business Economics from the University of Asia and the Pacific, and studied law
for two (2) years at Adamson University. He also has a good professional record,
which highlights his marketability. Thus, his reliance on the case of Molave
Tours Corporation v. NLRC, 20 where the employee found to have been forced
to resign was a mere garage custodian, is clearly misplaced.
In termination cases, the employer decides for the employee. It is different
in resignation cases for resignation is a formal pronouncement of relinquishment
of an office. It is made with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied
Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

by an act of relinquishment. 21 In the instant case, petitioner relinquished his

position when he submitted his letter of resignation. His subsequent act of
receiving and keeping his requested "soft landing" financial assistance of
P300,000.00, and his retention and use of the car subject of his arrangement with
private respondents showed his resolve to relinquish his post.
Thus, we affirm the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court
of Appeals that private respondents were able to prove through substantial
evidence that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. 22
II.
The next issue involves the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter to hear and
decide the question on the transfer of ownership of the car assigned to petitioner.
He contends that it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction over the question and
not the Labor Arbiter.
This is not an issue of first impression. The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters is
provided under Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, viz:
(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor
Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the
parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic
notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or
non-agricultural:
1.

Unfair labor practice cases;

2.

Termination disputes;

3.
If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that
workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment;
4.
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages arising from employer-employee relations;
5.
Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code,
including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
6.
Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from
employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.
Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

In all these instances, the matrix is the existence of an employer-employee

relationship. In the case at bar, there is no dispute that petitioner is an employee of
the respondents. In Baez v. Valdevilla, 23 we held:
. . . Presently, and as amended by R.A. 6715, the jurisdiction of
Labor Arbiters and the NLRC in Article 217 is comprehensive enough to
include claims for all forms of damages "arising from the
employer-employee relations."
CSTDEH

Whereas this Court in a number of occasions had applied the

jurisdictional provisions of Article 217 to claims of damages filed by
employees, 24 we hold that by the designating clause "arising from the
employer-employee relations" Article 217 should apply with equal force to
the claim of an employer for actual damages against its dismissed
employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is necessarily
connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a
counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case.

Baez is in accord with paragraph 6 of Article 217(a), which covers "all

other claims, arising from employer-employee relations," viz:
6.
Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from
employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.

In the case at bar, petitioner claims illegal dismissal and prays for
reinstatement, payment of full backwages inclusive of allowances, 14th month
pay, sick and vacation leaves, share in the profits, moral and exemplary damages
and attorney's fees. 25 These causes of action clearly fall within the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter, specifically under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 217(a). On
the other hand, private respondents made a counterclaim involving the transfer of
ownership of a company car to petitioner. They maintain that he failed to pay for
the car in accordance with their agreement. The issue is whether this claim of
private respondents arose from the employer-employee relationship of the parties
pursuant to paragraph 6 of Article 217(a) under the general clause as quoted
above.
The records show that the initial agreement of the parties was that petitioner
would be extended a "soft-landing" financial assistance in the amount of
P300,000.00 on top of his accrued benefits at the time of the effectivity of his
resignation. However, petitioner later changed his mind. He requested that he be
allowed to keep the car assigned to him in lieu of the financial assistance.
Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

However, company policy prohibits transfer of ownership of property without

valuable consideration. Thus, the parties agreed that petitioner shall still be
extended the P300,000.00 financial support, which he shall use to pay for the
subject car. On July 30, 1998, private respondent VMPI deposited the agreed
amount in petitioner's account. 26 Despite having registered the car in his name
and repeated demands from private respondents, petitioner failed to pay for it as
agreed upon. Petitioner did not also return the car. Without doubt, the transfer of
the ownership of the company car to petitioner is connected with his resignation
and arose out of the parties' employer-employee relations. Accordingly, private
respondents' claim for damages falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
III.
Petitioner was not illegally dismissed but voluntarily resigned. His claims
for reinstatement, payment of full backwages inclusive of allowances, moral and
exemplary damages and attorney's fees must necessarily fail. However, he is
entitled to his 14th month pay, cash conversion of accrued sick and vacation
leaves and profit share in the aggregate amount of P169,368.32, the total of which
is not disputed. The amount shall be applied to his obligation to pay P300,000.00
for the company car, which ownership was transferred to him. The return of the
company car to private respondents, given the period that has lapsed from the
offer, ceased to be an option open to petitioner.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Roberto T. Domondon is ORDERED to pay
private respondent Van Melle Phils., Inc. the amount of P130,631.68, representing
the balance of the purchase price of the car in his custody after deducting his
entitlement to 14th month pay, cash conversion of accrued sick and vacation
leaves and profit share in the total amount of P169,368.32 from the P300,000.00
"soft-landing" financial assistance he received from private respondent.
HaDEIc

SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Penned by Associate Justice Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr., concurred in by Associate

Justices Portia Alio-Hormachuelos and Mariano C. Del Castillo.
Ibid.
Docketed as NLRC NCR-11-09459-98.
Given every May of each year.
Manual transmission with Plate Number URD 498, company maintained and
insured, and title to be transferred after forty-eight (48) months.
Employment Contract, January 8, 1997; Rollo, pp. 59-60.

Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

Petitioner's Position Paper, February 22, 1999; Rollo, pp. 46-51.

Ibid.
Id.
Letter of Resignation, June 10, 1998; Rollo, p. 61.
See December 4, 1998 Affidavit of Joannes Cornelis Kuiten, Vice-President for
Finance, private respondent VMPI; Rollo, p. 99.
Ibid.
The January 19, 1999 Payroll Credit Certification issued by the Bank of the
Philippine Islands, Mandaluyong City Branch states that: "This is to certify that
Mr. Roberto Domondon under current account no. 0015-0162-64 has a payroll
credit amounting to PHP369,600.00 last July 30, 1998." The amount credited as
"soft landing" financial assistance was P300,000.00 only.
Respondents' Position Paper, Annex "3"; Rollo, pp. 69-70.
Edgardo M. Madriaga, National Capital Region Arbitration Branch, Quezon City.
Resolution penned by Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan, concurred in by
Commissioners Raul T. Aquino and Victoriano R. Calaycay.
Hantex Trading Co., Inc. and/or Chua v. Court of Appeals, et al., 390 SCRA 181
(2002), citing Leonardo v. NLRC, 333 SCRA 589 (2000).
Ibid., citing Permex, Inc. v. NLRC, 323 SCRA 121 (2000).
10 June 1998
VAN MELLE PHILS. INC.
4 Pioneer St.,
Mandaluyong City
Attention:

MR. NIELS H.B. HAVE

President/GM
Dear Mr. Have:
Effective closing hours, 31 July 1998, please consider me as resigned from my
position of Materials Manager.
I have decided to embark on management consultancy in the field of strategic
planning and import/export.

20.
21.

22.

Very truly yours,

(signed)
ROBERTO T. DOMONDON
11 Moonstone Road,
Pillar Village
Las Pias City
250 SCRA 325 (1995).
Valdez v. NLRC, 286 SCRA 87 (1998), citing Dosch v. NLRC, et al., 123 SCRA
296 (1983); Magtoto v. NLRC, et al., 140 SCRA 58 (1985); Molave Tours
Corporation v. NLRC, et al., 250 SCRA 325 (1995), citing Intertrod Maritime,
Inc., et al. v. NLRC, et al., 198 SCRA 318 (1991).
Notably, in the United States, an employee's resignation is presumed voluntary
and the employee bears the burden of rebutting the presumption. This
presumption applies even when an employee is threatened with termination for

Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

23.
24.

25.
26.

cause and resigns instead, provided there is a good cause for termination; a
resignation is not rendered involuntary because an employee tenders his
resignation to avoid termination for cause. (Travis v. Tacoma Public School
District, 120 Wash. App. 542, 85 P.3d 959, March 9, 2004.)
331 SCRA 584 (2000).
Citing Poloton-Tuvera v. Dayrit, 160 SCRA 423 (1988); Dizon v. Court of
Appeals, 210 SCRA 107 (1992); Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines
v. Martinez, 198 Phil. 296.
See note 3.
See note 13.

Copyright 1994-2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013