NOEL E. MORA VS AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION

NOEL E. MORA

VS

AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION
571 SCRA 226 (2008)

Voluntary resignations being unconditional in nature, both the intent and the overt act of relinquishment should concur.

Noel E. Mora (Mora) was hired as a sales engineer at herein respondent, Avesco Marketing Corporation (Avesco). He tendered a letter of resignation after being confronted for selling competitors’ products to the prejudice and detriment of Avesco and was given the option of either immediately resigning or face administrative charges. He consequently changed his mind and withdrew his letter of resignation on the same day. The following day, Avesco’s personnel manager issued a notice of disciplinary action. Mora has not heard anything from the Avesco and thereafter learned from third party sources that his employment had been terminated.

Mora filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since the dispute falls within the province of the grievance procedure provided for by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Avesco and the workers’ union. The case was thus referred to National Conciliation and Mediation Board for voluntary arbitration which dismissed Mora’s complaint upon the ground that he had voluntarily resigned prompting him to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which denied the same, it similarly finding him to have voluntarily resigned from his job.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Mora was voluntarily resigned from his job

HELD:
Voluntary resignations being unconditional in nature, both the intent and the overt act of relinquishment should concur. If the employer introduces evidence purportedly executed by an employee as proof of voluntary resignation yet the employee specifically denies such evidence, as in Mora’s case, the employer is burdened to prove the due execution and genuineness of such evidence. Avesco in this case failed to discharge such burden.

For a resignation tendered by an employee to take effect, it should first be accepted or approved by the employer. Mora’s receipt by Avesco’s personnel department of his resignation letter is not equivalent to approval. Since Mora requested that his resignation was to be effective a month later or on April 25, 2003, Avesco’s approval was a fortiori necessary. That Avesco issued the ―show cause‖ letter a day after Mora filed the controversial letter of resignation could only mean that it did not accept the same.

While selling of Avesco’s competitors’ products is a valid ground for termination of employment, an employer cannot just hurl generalized accusations but should at least cite specific instances and proof in support thereof. Avesco relied on a ―report by [Mora’s] superiors‖ in faulting Mora. What this alleged ―report‖ was and what it contained, no testimonial or documentary proof thereof was proffered. And while Avesco gave the impression that it conducted or was going to conduct an investigation on the basis of the ―report,‖ there is no showing that one such was conducted and, if there was, what the result was.