CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
359 Phil. 65; 95 OG No. 33, 5690 (August 16, 1999)
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 121486, November 16, 1998 ]
ANTONIO HABANA, PETITIONER VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HOTEL NIKKO MANILA GARDEN, MASAKASU TSURUOKA, MASAO YOKOO, AND TAMIYASU OKAWA, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
Before
us is a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the
decision of the NLRC dated 31 January
1995 which affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday dated
23
September 1994 dismissing petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal
and
damages. Similarly impugned is the NLRC’s resolution dated 20 April 1995
denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner.
The facts are:
On 16 March 1989, the
Hotel Nikko
Manila Garden (Nikko for brevity), a corporation duly organized and
existing
under Philippine laws and primarily engaged in the hotel and restaurant
business, employed petitioner Antonio Habana as Rooms Division Director.
Then General Manager
Masakazu
Tsuruoka issued the following inter-department memorandum announcing
petitioner’s appointment, detailing his experiences in the hotel
business. He expressed full support for petitioner’s
capability to improve and develop the services and facilities of the
Rooms
Division. The pertinent portion of the
memorandum reads:
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO : All Directors and Managers
FROM : SLZ
SUBJECT : MR. ANTONIO R. HABANA, ROOMS DIVISION DIRECTOR
DATE : March 15, 1989
I am pleased to announce the appointment of MR. ANTONIO R. HABANA to the position of Rooms Division Director effective March 16, 1989.
Mr. Habana joins Manila Garden Hotel backed by 20 years experience in the hotel industry. He worked with Manila Hilton, Guam Hilton and Hyatt Regency Manila in various managerial capacities. His recent employments were with Manila Hotel as Operations Analyst for 10 years up to June 1986, and with Penta Hotel in Manhattan, New York as Night Manager. From 1986 to early 1989, he was president of a travel/tour company in New York.
Mr. Habana is a BSBA Management graduate of Dela Salle University, and a BSBA Accounting graduate of the University of the East.
I ask every one to welcome and extend full support and cooperation to Mr. Habana to enable him to upgrade the services and facilities of the Division.
(SGD.) MASAKAZU TSURUOKA[1]
As Rooms Division
Director,
petitioner was tasked with the management and supervision of the “Front
Office, GRO, Concierge, Reservations,
Roomskeeping, Housekeeping and Telephone Exchange to ensure high
standard of
service.” [2]In particular, his duties were:
1. Formulates plans, projects, policies, system/procedures and new approaches in the management of all departments under Rooms and supervises the implementation of the same if determined feasible.
2. Conducts regular and surprise inspection of all work areas to ensure quality of performance. Formulates/implement operations improvement measures for Rooms Division.
3. Prepares divisional objectives and budget and implementation of the same.
4. Oversees the proper implementation of established Standard Operating procedures in Front Office operations, Reservations, public areas, guest floors and offices.
5. Ensures effective and efficient handling and processing of FITS, group booking and convention.
6. Upgrades the guest rooms and services offered therein, the laundry service and cleanliness and maintenance of public/service and garden areas for a more effective and efficient Housekeeping operations.
7. Oversees the efficient and high quality Housekeeping of guest rooms, suites, service areas at guest floors.
8. Oversees the proper handling of hotel telephone systems and switchboard operation to ensure good communication service.
9. Performs
other
duties that the General Manager/Assistant General Manager may assign
from
time to time.[3]
On 31 May 1989, upon the
request
of top management, petitioner submitted a “Report on Rooms
Division’s Operation” to Mr. Tsuruoka
wherein he identified the problem areas under his responsibility and
concommitantly discussed the improvements that had been accomplished and
programs he had initiated in line with Hotel Nikko’s aim to upgrade “the
standard of service and hotel facilities to ensure guest satisfaction.”[4] These included open dialogues among the
department
heads, modification of duties for easy determination of accountability,
training program for Assistant Department Heads to prevent disruption of
operations in absence of the Department Heads and various repairs and
refurbishments of guest rooms and public area facilities.[5]
In the course of his
employment,
however, petitioner encountered several difficulties, among which was
his failure to unite and control his
managerial staff. In particular, petitioner
had several conflicts with his Senior Rooms Manager, Dolores Samson. On
9 January 1990, he issued a memorandum
admonishing her for her failure to comply with the standard operating
procedure
of informing petitioner, being her immediate supervisor, of matters
pertaining
to their division’s operations. Petitioner reminded Samson that it was
her responsibility to advise and inform him of all memoranda,
reports, problems and other matters relative to their operations which
come to her attention.[6] Similarly, in a special meeting called on 24
January
1990, petitioner reiterated that “meetings/ discussions and
instructions/decisions should not be done by (Samson) unless cleared
with (him),” [7]due to the “confusions regarding (the)
implementation
of instructions coming from the Rooms Division office.”[8]
Thereafter, on 22 March
1990, then Assistant General
Manager Masao Yokoo issued a memorandum expressing concern over the
dispute
between petitioner and his managerial staff in the Rooms Division. Mr.
Yokoo stressed the importance of good
teamwork and urged petitioner to take responsibility for the “unhealthy
situation” and to immediately carry out corrective measures. Otherwise,
management may be compelled to
intervene and take action. The
memorandum reads in full:
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO : R M Z
FROM : S L Z A
DATE : 22 March 1990
I would like you to realize that management is very much concerned with the conflicts involving yourself and your managerial staff within Rooms Division. This may be the first time we are calling your attention through this manner, but management has been aware for quite some time of the disunity and disharmony that has remained unresolved inspite of the several attempts management has initiated for you to have person-to-person dialogues with your managers, inasmuch as management wants you, as Director for Rooms Division, to take responsibility for the existence of such an unhealthy situation.
We strongly believe that good teamwork coupled with high respect for each other’s potentiality and creativity within your area of responsibility is essential to motivate efficiency and improve self-esteem of your staff, as we consider it of vital importance for operations and should be given the highest priority at this instance.
As a result, management has decided to give you due process to carry out management’s perception through instant corrective measures, or management would be compelled to act or intervene directly and irrevocably.
(Sgd) MASAO YOKOO
Assistant General Manager[9]
Instead of complying,
petitioner
issued a reply belying the existence of any conflict within the Rooms
Division.
He explained that the misunderstanding was only between himself and his
assistant Dolores Samson which arose when he reprimanded her for
violating the
hotel’s SOPs. Petitioner stated that
the aforequoted memorandum should have been addressed to Ms. Samson.
He suggested that “better result
will be attained if you (Yokoo) call the attention of those
uncooperative with
their supervisor whose intention is to achieve a systematic and orderly
operation of his division such as mine . . . .”[10] He further stated that he had tried to solve
the
conflict following the applicable disciplinary actions but “the only way
to
make it effective to Ms. Samson is when management make(s) her realize
that her
improper behavior is to the detriment of the operation.”[11]
Aside from the
afore-discussed
conflict, the Labor Arbiter found that petitioner was engaged in real
estate
business, was frequently absent and tardy and that there were rampant
violations of hotel rules due to petitioner’s
failure to effectively manage his division. For instance, an employee
with an approved room discounts for only one
night (August 13, 1989) was allowed to change the reservation to August
17 and
extend their stay availing of the discounted rate up to August 21 1989.
There were also complaints regarding wrong key issuances and double
check-in of guests in one room. In addition,
the rooms in the hotel were often found dirty and unkempt.[12]
As a result thereof on 24
April
1990, Mr. Tamiyasu Okawa who was appointed on 26 March 1990, as
Executive
Assistant for Sales, Marketing and Rooms and replaced Mr. Yokoo as
petitioner’s
immediate superior, issued a memorandum instructing petitioner, Ms.
Vicky
Raquepo (Roomskeeping Manager) and Mr. Danilo Cabaluna (Housekeeping
Manager)
to conduct a daily inspection of the guestrooms and the public areas,
due to
the several complaints received by management. The full text of the
memorandum is hereby reproduced:
HOTEL NIKKO MANILA GARDEN
OFFICE OF THE ROOMS DIVISION
TO : RMZ/HKM/RKM
FROM : E A S R
RE : DAILY INSPECTION
DATE : 24 APRIL 1990
As you all know we have been receiving several complaints regarding not only of our guestrooms but also in our public area.
Please ensure that a daily inspection is conducted and report to the undersigned. Schedule as follows:
ATTENTION
9:00AM - 12:00 NN - Room Inspection RMZ/RKM
1:30 PM - 3:30 PM - Public Area RMZ/HKM
3:30 PM - 4:30 PM - Coordinate with RMZ/HKM/RKM
Engineering
6:00 PM - 6:30 PM - Report the result RMZ/HKM/RKM
(SGD.) TAMIYASU OKAWA[13]
On 27 April 1990, petitioner sent a memorandum of protest to Mr. Okawa alleging that the latter’s order for petitioner to inspect the hotel’s guestrooms and public areas from 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. left him no time to perform his other functions and thus effectively stripping him of his powers and responsibilities without justification. He declared that the above order was a form of harassment to “ease him out of his position.” In the said memorandum, petitioner illustrated in detail the other forms of alleged harassment perpetuated supposedly by Mr. Okawa, like the transfer of petitioner to a smaller office; the removal of petitioner’s name as one of the approving officers in the personnel forms; and the exclusion of petitioner from regular meetings regarding Rooms Division operations:
HOTEL NIKKO MANILA GARDEN
OFFICE OF THE ROOMS DIVISION DIRECTOR
F O R : E A S R
F R O M : R M Z
R E : AS STATED
D A T E : 27 APRIL 1990
Recently, you stripped me of my powers and responsibilities, without case (sic) and justification and relegated me to the job of inspecting rooms and public area. Thus, in your Memorandum of April 24, 1990, you instructed me to do the above job from 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., thereby preventing me from performing my other functions such as attending meetings, managing the activities at the Front Office, Reservations, Telephone Departments as well as attending to matters affecting the overall operation of my area of responsibility. This strongly confirms the fact that you are exerting best efforts to harass me and ease me out of my position, as can be gleaned from the following:
1. On April 16, 1990, while I was on sick leave, you caused my office/things to be transferred to a smaller room which is a passageway going to SLZA’s office. This caused me great shame and embarrassment;
2. For some time now, you have been conducting meetings with my staff without inviting me although matters discussed therein involved the operation of my division. Thus, I was left out in the cold as to matters concerning my own division;
3. Last Friday, April 20, 1990, you informed me that you can easily ease me out of my job by just effecting a reorganization of my division;
4. One time upon seeing a request from PHI particularly addressed to me for me to review a contract, you took said request and directly acted on it without informing me thereof, inspite of the fact that I was in my office at that time.
5. Last April 24, 1990, you particularly instructed me not to attend a very important seminar intended for all Directors and Managers, and instead ordered me to do routine room inspection. I was the only director who was not allowed to attend this seminar, to my great embarrassment;
6. When I issued a memorandum to a subordinate who had repeatedly failed to follow the hotel’s SOPs, you reprimanded me and instructed me not to send out memos anymore. When I tried to explain, you shouted at me and ordered me to resign. I would like to make it of record that I have no plans to resign because I have not done anything which warrants me to do so. I will try to do my job to the best of my ability despite that fact that you have been persistently making my working conditions unbearable in order to force me to resign;
7. During the past weeks, before your memo for my daily inspection dated April 24, 1990, whenever I would go to my office so that I can review some documents or otherwise work out some plans for the different departments under my division, you would always send me out and require me to do some more inspection work.
8. You instructed our secretaries not to include my name as signatory to Personnel Forms such as Employees Status Form and Misconduct Notice prepared for Rooms Division, which means that my authority to approve the same has likewise been removed from me. This again curtailed my authority as a Division Director.
9. In several occasions you have been very rude, sarcastic and discourteous. I cannot be denied that you have shouted and insulted me even in the presence of my staff. But even if my self respect is agitated, I cannot openly question your manner being my superior.
The above acts have caused me serious anxiety. Hence, with respect, this is to call your attention of the abovementioned to respect my rights as an employee and dignity as a human.
Thank you.
(SGD.) ANTONIO R. HABANA[14]
However, on 2 May 1990,
petitioner
went to the Hotel’s Comptroller, Mr. Ernesto Rosales asking for his
severance
pay of P120,000.00 plus accrued benefits in the amount of P11,865.28,
for
a total of P131,865.28. The check was
prepared but before it was released, petitioner was asked to submit a
letter of resignation pursuant to hotel
policy. Petitioner dictated the
contents of his resignation letter to Mr. Rosales’ secretary who
prepared the
same. After the letter was finished, petitioner signed it and submitted
it to
Mr. Rosales who, in turn, gave the check to petitioner. [15]Petitioner’s resignation letter reads as
follows:
May 02, 1990
Hotel Nikko Manila Garden
Makati, Metro Manila
Attention: Personnel Department
Gentlemen:
I hereby tender my resignation effective the close of business hour of May 15, 1990 and I wish to thank the management and staff for having worked with them for the past year.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ANTONIO HABANA
Rooms Division Director[16]
Petitioner,
likewise,
executed an Affidavit of Quitclaim in favor of Hotel Nikko.
The next day, 3 May 1990,
respondents received a letter from petitioner (addressed to Mr. Okawa)
who
insisted that he was forced to resign because he could no longer endure
Mr.
Okawa’s acts of harassment against him. The letter reads in full:
MR. TAMIYASU OKAWA
Executive Assistant for
Sales and Rooms
Hotel Nikko Manila Garden
Makati, Metro Manila
Dear Mr. Okawa,
I resigned because I could no longer endure your harassments. Yesterday, May 2, 1990, when I explained to you that the reason for my absence last April 28 and 30, 1990 was due to fever, you told me that I was sick here (pointing to your head). This was just another instance among the other several acts of harassment which you maliciously performed in order to force me to resign. With the things you have done which subjected me to humiliation and embarassment, they only decent thing to do was to resign.
I was likewise forced to receive the money offered to me, in order to have money to spend during the days I am out of work.
Thank you.
(SGD.) ANTONIO R. HABANA[17]
Consequently, on 17 May
1990,
petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against
Hotel
Nikko and its officers Masakasu Tsuruoka, Masao Yokoo and Tamiyasu
Okawa.
On 23 September 1994,
Labor
Arbiter Manuel R. Caday dismissed the complaint. He ruled that when
petitioner sensed that the hotel’s top
management has lost its confidence in his ability to effectively manage
the Rooms
Division, he offered to voluntarily resign in exchange for a large
amount of separation pay. Labor Arbiter Caday further declared that
the alleged acts of harassment were non-existent, being merely the
“self-serving imaginations conceptualized by complainant who for
boasting too
much of his alleged twenty (20) years know-how in hotel operations,
could not
swallow his pride and accept his being constantly reminded, reproached
and
reprimanded by his disciplinarian new superior officer, respondent
Okawa, for
his failing ability to effectively manage and control his own Division.”[18]
The dispositive portion
of the
above decision states as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the instant case for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[19]
On appeal to the NLRC,
the latter
rendered a decision on 31 January 1995 affirming the findings of Labor
Arbiter Caday. The NLRC ruled that the “alleged
harassments” were “nothing more than resentment to (the) high
and strict standards of work and personal grudge or animosity towards a
superior.”[20] Likewise, the NLRC maintained that petitioner
voluntarily resigned as manifested by his act of negotiating for a huge
amount
of separation pay. Hence, the
dispositive portion of the NLRC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 23 September 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED and the appeal of complainant is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[21]
When his motion for
reconsideration was denied in the Resolution of the NLRC dated 20 April
1998,
petitioner came to this Court stating the following grounds for his
petition
for certiorari:
I
PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER HAD VOLUNTARILY RESIGNED FROM EMPLOYMENT.
II
PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT AWARDING DAMAGES TO PETITIONER.[22]
The petition is without
merit.
Evidently, the issues
raised in
this case are factual in nature and firm is the principle that “factual
findings of the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the
Labor
Arbiter, are accorded respect, even finality, and will not be disturbed
for as
long as such findings are supported by substantial evidence.”[23]
We have painstakingly
reviewed the
records of this case and we find no justifiable reason to overturn the
findings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
Petitioner accuses the
hotel’s top
brass of deliberately committing acts
of harassment which were intended to and eventually succeeded in forcing
him to
resign.
Petitioner laments that
he was
completely stripped of his powers and
functions as Director of the Rooms Division when Mr. Okawa, Executive
Assistant
for Sales, Marketing and Rooms and petitioner’s immediate superior,
tasked him with inspecting the hotel’s guest
rooms and public areas. Conducting
these daily inspections, he adds, took up all of his working hours
leaving him
no time to attend to his other important duties. Hence, “the very
essence
and substance of his directorship” was taken away from him. He was, in
effect, demoted to a mere room
inspector “with a rank a notch higher than a bellboy.” Moreover,
petitioner could no longer endure
the humiliation and indignity of going from room to room, inspecting
the toilets and garbage areas, “clad in his
standard formal suit and tie” and concludes that this was part of
a malicious scheme to “harass” him out
of his position.
We are not convinced.
The instructions for
petitioner,
along with the Executive Housekeeper (Danilo Cabaluna) and the Executive
Roomskeeper (Victoria Raquepo) to conduct daily inspection of the guest
rooms
and public areas of the hotel could hardly be characterized as
harassment. The orders were not
borne out of mere whim and caprice. As
explicitly stated in the Memorandum dated 24 April 1990, the management
was
getting several complaints regarding the hotel’s guestrooms and public
areas[24] and petitioner did not dispute this. In
fact, he testified as follows:
x x x.
ATTY. BAUSA:
We will go back to that letter on Mr. Habana, we will quote to you the next complaint which is the alleged inspection of rooms. As the Rooms Division Director, it is one of your duties to inspect the rooms, is it not?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
ATTY. BAUSA:
As a matter of fact, it is one of the duties enumerated in your Job Description? Is that correct?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
ATTY. BAUSA:
More specifically, it is contained in item No. 2 in the enumeration of your Job description contained in your affidavit?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
ATTY. BAUSA:
You will agree with us Mr. Habana, that the rooms and public area of a five (5) star hotel should not only be clean and tidy, it would be impeccable also, is that correct?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
ATTY. BAUSA:
And seeing to it that this (sic) rooms were in that impeccable condition, are critical and crucial part of your job, is that correct?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
ATTY. BAUSA:
During this time that you complaint of which is also mentioned in your affidavit, it is not a fact that there were several complaints from the public about the condition of the rooms as well as the public area.
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
ATTY. BAUSA:
Is it for this reason that . . . the improvement and the maintenance of this rooms condition were imperative?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
From the aforequoted
testimony petitioner, likewise,
admitted that his primordial
responsibility as Rooms Division Director was to ensure that the
guestrooms
measure up to the highest standards of cleanliness. He supplemented
this by testifying that:
x x x.
ATTY. BAUSA:
Mr. Habana, you confirmed here that one of the most important functions of your room division, is to see to it that the guest rooms and the public areas in the hotel, are in the best condition, it is not?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
ATTY. BAUSA:
I see. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Habana, this is your major responsibility in the hotel, is it not?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir, that is one of my responsibilities.
ATTY. BAUSA:
And that the time that you were requested to conduct continuous inspections of the rooms.... conditions of the hotel rooms and the public areas were at the worse?
WITNESS:
Well, yes.
ATTY. BAUSA:
Just answer the question, Mr. Habana?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
If petitioner was
well-aware that
conducting room inspections was a major part of his responsibilities,
then, he
certainly had no reason to complain, much less be embarrassed about.
Moreover, inspections conducted by division heads are not without
precedent. Ms. Pearl Aragon, Hotel Nikko’s Director
for Administration (who holds the same level position as petitioner)
testified
that she herself had to inspect garbage areas and the hotel sewers and
she
did not feel the least bit embarassed about it because it was part of
her
work. Even the General Manager, she
added, would go around and inspect various areas of the hotel. She
expounded thus:
x x x.
ATTY. ANASCO:
Q: Mr. Habana also claim that he was made to inspect rooms, toilets, garbage areas for eight hours a day, what can you say about his claim, Madam Witness?
MS. ARAGON:
A: That is something that we are all expected to do. I for one, being in-charge, since I managed for instance the engineering department, I’m being asked to inspect sewage fits; I’m being asked to inspect wet and dry garbage areas. Even the GM, itself, would go around and inspect each places. So I don’t think that anyone to be exempt to do those things. All of us have our own duties to perform and areas to visit and inspect. I don’t think that it is unusual for asking Mr. Habana to go and inspect the areas under his responsibility.
ATTY. ANASCO:
Q: You mentioned earlier that you, yourself did kind of inspection?
MS. ARAGON:
A: Yes.
ATTY. ANASCO:
Q: When you did this inspection, how did you feel then?
MS. ARAGON:
A: It’s part of my work as Manager in-charge of those areas. It’s my obligation to do those things, so I should do that without any question, without any bitterness, without any thinking that I’m being downgraded or being put to embarrassment or anything. Just performing my regular job.
Petitioner’s complaint
that he was
made to conduct inspections the whole
day while his two subordinates were assigned only a few hours each is
unmeritorious. Petitioner was the
head of his division. Precisely, it
was his duty to take command responsibility. Sadly, petitioner has lost
sight of the fact that being a leader is not
all prestige and glamour but includes,
in great measure, hard work. Being
charged to take action is not harassment but a challenge to petitioner’s
leadership capability.
Petitioner puts too much
emphasis on the merit for cleanliness given to Hotel Nikko
in 1989 by the Department of Tourism. He stated that the same was
awarded at the time he took over the helm of
the hotel’s Rooms Division.
This pronouncement
deserves scant
consideration. Firstly, in his
testimony during the 11 March 1992 hearing, petitioner explicitly stated
that
he was not aware that Hotel Nikko was awarded such recognition,[28] Secondly, the
Hotel must be able to maintain, if not surpass, the same standard of
cleanliness which merited them the award in the first place. Hence, the
need for the daily inspections.
Equating the “daily
inspection
measure” to harassment is but the result of petitioner’s misplaced
perception. On the contrary, it was a valid solution
conceived by top management to counter guest complaints on the state of
hotel’s
guestrooms and public areas. It cannot
be denied that cleanliness is top priority in the hotel business.
Petitioner was the Rooms Division Director
and this was his responsibility. He was not singled out. He was
simply called to task.
Another act of
harassment,
petitioner contends, was his unceremonious ouster from his old office
and his transfer to a “pitiable passageway.”
Petitioner exaggerates.
As found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, said move was brought about
by
operational necessity. Mr. Okawa needed
a room which could be divided into an office and a meeting area. [29]Again, this is not an uncommon practice.
From her own experience, Ms. Aragon
testified thus:
x x x.
ATTY. ANASCO:
Q: Another form of harassment that Mr. Habana claimed is that he was transferred from big room to small room, what can you say about this, Madam Witness?
MS. ARAGON:
A: The relocation of office has happened several times. I for one, again, as an example, used to occupy a forty (40) square meter room and my secretary in that room. Now, I’m occupying a twelve (12) square meter room because my room had to be given with the new PHI President. These things we have to do to give way to some operational requirements. Its’ not the first time it happened.
ATTY. ANASCO:
Q: For the record what is your present position?
MS. ARAGON:
A: I’m the Director for Administration and I have five departments under me. I’m supervising personnel, accounting, training, engineeering and purchasing. I’d like to say it is the same level Mr. Habana used to occupy, a director level.
Petitioner also claims
that his alleged exclusion from the regular
staff meetings held by Mr. Okawa and the removal of his name from the
hotel’s
personnel requisition forms were
concoctions aimed to force him to resign.
On the first claim,
aside
from petitioner’s self-serving allegation, there is nothing in the
record to
support the same. On the second
accusation, we agree with the findings of the Labor Arbiter. Said
rearrangement was not intended to ease
petitioner out, rather it was to enable Mr. Okawa, petitioner’s
immediate
supervisor “to have stricter control inasmuch as in the past, there were
many
occasions that the hiring, recruitment and transfer of employees were
being
freezed by the Rooms Division Head.”[31]
In sum, the various
measures
executed by the hotel’s top management were not acts of harassment but
were
legitimate exercise of management prerogatives. In San Miguel
Brewery
Sales Force Union (PTGWO) v. Ople,[32] when San
Miguel’s marketing scheme known as the “Complementary Distribution
System”
(CDS), [whereby its beer products were offered for sale directly to
wholesalers
through its sales offices] came under fire for allegedly reducing the
take-home
pay of its route salesmen and truck helpers since the company, in
effect, would
be competing with them, we held:
Public respondent was correct in holding that the CDS is a valid exercise of management prerogatives:
“Except as limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work. x x x (NLU vs. Insular La Yebana Co., 2 SCRA 924; Republic Savings Bank vs. CIR, 21 SCRA 226, 235.)” (Perfecto V. Hernandez, Labor Relations Law, 1985 ED., p. 44.) (Italics ours.)
Every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits. In the process, it may adopt or devise means designed towards that goal. In Abott Laboratories vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA 713, We ruled:
“x x x Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.”
So long as a company’s management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them (LVN Pictures Workers vs. LVN, 35 SCRA 147; Phil. American Embroideries vs. Embroidery and Garment Workers, 26 SCRA 634; Phil. Refining Co. vs. Garcia, 18 SCRA 110).
The
harassment
issue raised by petitioner was but a smokescreen to conceal his own
shortcomings.
The next issue to be
resolved is
whether or not petitioner voluntarily resigned. Petitioner asserts that
private respondents coerced and
intimidated him into resigning through their collective acts of
harassment
which caused him tremendous psychological and emotional stress. He
further alleges that the P120,000.00 separation pay was the
pay-off offered by Hotel Nikko in exchange for his resignation.
Petitioner stresses that he had no
intention of resigning as manifested in his memorandum dated 27 April
1990, the pertinent portion
of which states:
x x x.
When I issued a memorandum to a subordinate who had repeatedly failed to follow the hotel’s SOP’s, you reprimanded me and instructed me not to send out memos anymore. When I tried to explain, you shouted at me and ordered me to resign. I would like to make it of record that I have no plans to resign because I have not done anything which warrants me to do so. I will try to do my job to the best of my ability despite that fact that you have been persistently making my working conditions unbearable in order to force me to resign;
Contrariwise, private
respondents
contend that it was petitioner who approached (around the first week of
April
1990) Ms. Aragon indicating his desire to resign due to his
“difficulty in
coping with his responsibilities as Rooms Division Director”[34] and his differences with his immediate boss,
Mr.
Okawa. Petitioner wanted a severance
pay of P250,000.00 and he solicited Ms.
Aragon’s assistance in this regard. Negotiations ensued until both
parties (petitioner and Hotel Nikko through Ms. Aragon) agreed on
P120,000.00 as separation pay. Thereafter,
on 2 May 1990, petitioner went to the office of the Comptroller, Mr.
Rosales to
get his check. Upon Mr. Rosales’ request, pursuant to hotel
policy, petitioner prepared his letter of resignation (typed by Mr.
Rosales’
secretary) and submitted it to the
former.
We agree with private
respondents that petitioner
voluntarily resigned.
Voluntary resignation is
defined
as the voluntary act of an employee who
“finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons
cannot be
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and he has no other
choice
but to dissassociate himself from his employement.”[35] In this case, as indicated in the various
memoranda
he received from his superiors, petitioner was clearly having trouble
performing his job, one which
undeniably carries immense responsibilities. Notable too was
petitioner’s failure to see eye to eye with
his immediate bosses, first, Mr. Yokoo
and then Mr. Okawa. Because of these
difficulties, it was quite reasonable for petitioner to think of, and
eventually, relinquishing his position voluntarily (and get a fat sum as
severance pay in the bargain) instead of waiting to be fired.
Petitioner could not have
been intimidated by private respondents to
quit. In his 27 April 1990 memorandum,
petitioner emphatically vowed not to resign despite private respondents’
alleged acts of harassment. Surprisingly, however, after only a few
days he did quit alleging that
he was forced and harassed to do so. If petitioner was adamant in his
intention not to be coerced into
leaving, how could he suddenly be forced to resign. Petitioner
glaringly contradicted
himself. His excuse is, thus,
unbelievable and unjustifiable.
Guatson Int’l.
Travel & Tours vs. NLRC[36]does
not
apply in this case. The factual milieu
is different and more importantly the Guatson case involved a
mere messenger who, understandably, could easily be cowed and forced by
his employer to quit, while the case at bar involves a well-educated
professional and a managerial employee
at that. The ruling in Samaniego v.
NLRC[37] is
instructive:
It must be emphasized as well that the petitioners are not ordinary laborers or rank-and-file personnel who may not be able to completely comprehend and realize the consequences of their acts. The petitioners are managerial employees holding responsible positions. They are educated individuals. For his part, petitioner Samaniego immediately assumed a ranking position in a competing company after his resignation from Sandvik Philippines, Inc. Under these circumstances, it can hardly be said that they were coerced into resigning from the company.
The Solicitor General maintains that receipt of separation pay is not a bar to contesting the legality of dismissal from employment. The observation is beside the point. As stated earlier, there is no illegal dismissal in the case at bar.
From the foregoing, it clearly appears that the petitioners voluntarily resigned from the company for a valuable consideration. The quitclaim they executed in favor of the company amounts to a valid and binding compromise agreement. To allow the petitioners to repudiate the same will be to countenance unjust enrichment on their part. The Court will not permit such a situation.
Petitioner tries to belie
private
respondents’ contention that they negotiated for the former’s separation
pay by
pointing out that the negotiations allegedly began in the first week of
April
1990 but petitioner categorically stated on 27 April 1990 that he would
not
resign.
Petitioner’s claim is not
convincing. As testified by Ms. Aragon, in early April 1990,
petitioner told her he was thinking of resigning. At that time
petitioner had not yet made up
his mind. Apparently, he made his
decision to voluntarily quit after 27 April 1990 and after finally
agreeing on
the P120,000.00 separation pay.
Furthermore, the fact
that Mr.
Rosales, the hotel’s Comptroller required petitioner to submit a
resignation
letter before his separation pay was released did not militate against
the voluntariness of his
resignation. Petitioner readily
acceded and was the one who dictated the contents of the said letter to
Mr.
Rosales’ secretary who typed the same and he showed neither resistance
nor
protest when he submitted his letter of resignation.[38]
Finally, the timing of
petitioner’s letter of protest, which he sent to private respondents
just after
he received the check for his severance pay on 3 May 1990, arouses
suspicion
of bad faith. He wanted to exact
something more from private respondents despite his voluntary
resignation and acceptance of a huge amount of separation pay.
In view of the foregoing
findings, petitioner’s claim for damages must, likewise, fail.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa CJ. (Chairman),Romero, Purisima and Pardo JJ., concur.
[1] Annex D, Rollo, p. 79.
[2] Annex E, Rollo, p. 80.
[3] Rollo, p. 80-81.
[4] Annex C, Original Records, pp. 47-50.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Annex F, Original Records, p. 53.
[7] Annex H, Original Records, pp. 57-58.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Rollo, p. 82.
[10] Id., at 83-85.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Id., at 51-52.
[13] Id., at 86.
[14] Id., at 87-88.
[15] TSN, 8 February 1994, pp. 9-10.
[16] Annex "E," Original Records, p. 89.
[17] Rollo, p. 89.
[18] Id., at 59.
[19] Id., at 63.
[20] Id., at 74-75.
[21] Id., at 75.
[22] Id., at 24-25.
[23] Belaunzaran v. NLRC, 265 SCRA 800 (1996); See also Oscar Ledesma and Company v. NLRC, 246 SCRA 471 (1995) and Ala Mode Garments, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 122165, 17 February, 1997.
[24] Rollo, p. 86.
[25] TSN, 26 March 1992, pp. 64-67.
[26] TSN, 23 April 1992, pp. 55-56.
[27] TSN, 8 February 1994, pp. 21-24.
[28] TSN, 11 March 1992, p. 40.
[29] Rollo, pp. 58-59; TSN, 8 February 1992, p. 29.
[30] TSN, 8 February 1992, pp. 24-26.
[31] Rollo, p. 58.
[32] 170 SCRA 25 (1989).
[33] Rollo, p. 88.
[34] Id., at 120.
[35] PHIMCO Industries, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118141, 11 June 1997.
[36] 230 SCRA 815 (1994).
[37] 193 SCRA 111 (1991).
[38] TSN, 21 March 1994, pp. 9-14.