ISSUES

3. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT BELATEDLY FILED A COMPLAINT FOR

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

THIRD ISSUE: (BELATED FILING OF COMPLAINT 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. This case, opined that the lapse of a
considerably long period of time erodes the integrity of Delvey’s claim,
as it did not seem to be the actuation of an aggrieved party.

The resignation of Anna Delvey was voluntary. 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 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 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.

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.
These, taken cumulatively, negate any indication that Anna
Delvey was under any duress when she resigned, contrary to her
assertions. Because of the same, Steins Gate Construction Inc. (SGCI)
cannot be held guilty of illegal dismissal. Therefore, the company is not
liable to Anna Delvey for damages, including payment of separation pay
in lieu of reinstatement with full backwages, non-payment of 13th
month pay and other monetary benefits, and attorney’s fees against
SGCI.