PHILIPPINES TODAY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION G.R.

No. 112965. January 30, 1997

FACTS
Felix R. Alegre was an assistant to the publisher in the Philippine Star, which is
owned by Philippines Today,Inc.
Respondent Alegre filed a request for a thirty-day leave of absence for him to
undergo medical consultations abroad. Four days later, he wrote a "Memorandum for
File" addressed to Betty Go-Belmonte, Chairman & CEO of The STAR Group of
Publications, with copies furnished to members of the board of directors of PTI. The
said Memorandum, the subject as “Having it All”, contains an expression of the
Petitioner’s frustrations and disappointments in his job or relations with his immediate
superior.
Subsequently, Respondent received a letter from Belmonte informing him that
Board has accepted his resignation. Alegre wrote Belmonte expressing surprise over
the acceptance of his "resignation", since he never resigned. He then filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal and damages against herein petitioners. The labor arbiter dismissed
the complaint. On appeal by Alegre, the NLRC set aside the decision of the labor
arbiter adopting the definition in Black's Law Dictionary of resignation as a "formal
renouncement or relinquishment of an office”.

ISSUE
Whether the Memorandum for File of Respondent constitutes a letter of resignation.

RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that said Memorandum constitutes a letter of
resignation.
The Court said that NLRC was too strict in adhering to the literal dictionary
meaning of "resignation" and ignored the peculiarity of the factual circumstances
surrounding the case. Courts and quasi-judicial bodies, in the exercise of their functions
and in making decisions, must not be too dogmatic as to restrict themselves to literal
interpretations of words, phrases and sentences. A complete and wholistic view must be
taken in order to render a just and equitable judgment.
Alegre's choice of words and way of expression is too affrontive, combative and
confrontational. His incendiary words and sarcastic remarks strongly can only mean
expression of disloyalty and disrespect, an act of "burning his bridges" with the officers
of the company. It renders the writer unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by
his position. Respondent Alegre as a professional journalist, a persuasive writer and a
law graduate and having worked with the chairman and CEO of PTI and all members of
the board of directors, knew how his letter would be perceived and received. The
conclusion is inevitable that he had the sense to anticipate the consequences and
effects of his words and actions.
In addition, Alegre’s actions antecedent, contemporaneous and subsequent to
his Memorandum confirmed his intention to terminate his employment. First, the Court
found nothing to show that he actually underwent any medical check-up, the supposed
reason for his leave of absence. Second, respondent cleared his desk of his personal
belongings even before he knew of the acceptance of his resignation.Third, respondent
did not return to his job after his leave of absence expired. Fourth, if Respondent Alegre
had really no intention to resign, he could have reported back to work. Fifth, prior to his
memorandum, Respondent Alegre informed Petitioner Belmonte of his intention to
resign from the Philippine Star. Finally, the Respondent was immediately employed as
chief of staff of the office of then Senator Sotero H. Laurel which time coincided with the
period of his leave of absence or immediately thereafter.
WHEREFORE, the Decision and Resolution of the NLRC are SET ASIDE
since the Court find no case of illegal dismissal.