Amicable settlement negates illegal dismissal

Amicable settlement negates illegal dismissal | Daily Tribune

A security guard was investigated for an alleged infraction of company rules. He went to the National Labor Relations Commission to complain. The security guard and his employer met before the labor arbiter and subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.

Another hearing was set to determine compliance with the terms of the agreement. At this hearing, the guard said the employer failed to comply with some of the terms. Because of this, he filed for illegal dismissal.

The issue: can he still do so, considering that he already entered into an amicable settlement with his employer? The answer is no.

The Supreme Court clearly explains why:

“As the CA correctly determined, the Quitclaim and Release signed by Vergara is valid and binding upon him. It is well to mention that he does not dispute the authenticity and due execution thereof. Further, the Quitclaim was subscribed and sworn to before Executive Labor Arbiter Mariano L. Bactin.

“In the absence of any allegation or proof that Vergara was coerced into executing the quitclaim, its validity and binding effect must be upheld. In Radio Mindanao Network Inc. v. Amurao III, the Court reiterated the rule that: ‘Where the party has voluntarily made the waiver, with a full understanding of its terms as well as its consequences, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking, and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind.’

“The fact that Vergara’s ATM card was not returned to him does not render the Quitclaim ineffective. Although returning Vergara’s ATM card was mentioned in the parties’ preliminary conference, the respondents had explained that the issue regarding the ATM card was a separate matter between Vergara and Fernandez — they had no control over this subject.

“There is no plausible reason why Vergara insists on recovering his ATM card from the respondents when it appears to be in the possession of Femandez, to whom Vergara was allegedly indebted. As to Vergara’s claim of illegal dismissal, the Court affirms the findings of the CA that he was not dismissed from employment.

“’In illegal termination cases, jurisprudence has underscored that the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of an employer indicating the intention to dismiss.’ In this case, Vergara was not at all able to substantiate his allegation of verbal dismissal. At most, he was subjected to disciplinary action inappropriately, as it was imposed without a prior investigation.

“Based on the Memorandum dated 8 March 2013, Vergara was relieved of his post at BPI San Agustin branch and was told to report to CDM’s office for: 1) Violation of Code of Ethics No. 12 (proper use of firearms); and 2) Grave threat to Fernandez (pointing a 12-gauge shotgun).

“This Memorandum was served to him the very next day after the incident. Additionally, the written account of Lito Panoy, a fellow security guard who witnessed the altercation, was dated 13 March 2013, a week after Vergara was discharged from his place of assignment.

“Thus, it is clear that no investigation was conducted before the findings of violation came about. However, in view of the Quitclaim and Release executed by Vergara, the respondents cannot be held liable for relieving him from his post. Besides, even in the absence of the quitclaim, there is no evidence to suggest that he was being suspended or dismissed from work.

“Per the Memorandum, recalling Vergara from his duty is a penalty in itself; to presume that removing him from his place of assignment is tantamount to illegal suspension or termination would be indulging in speculation, as he may also be subjected to a reassignment only.”

The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from G.R. 225862, 5 December 2018.