534 Phil. 816
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the termination of complainant NORY A. JUANGCO illegal.On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) promulgated its Decision dated October 1, 2002 reversing the Labor Arbiter's Decision and dismissing respondent's complaint.
Accordingly, respondents AMKOR TECHNOLOGY PHILS., INC., MIKE PETRUCCI, DANNY D. FRANKLIN and ROSEMARIE S. KATALBAS are ordered to jointly and solidarily reinstate complainant NORY A. JUANGCO to her former executive position (Executive Director) without loss of earned seniority rights and other benefits and privileges with full backwages from date of dismissal up to actual date of reinstatement in the total amount as of this date P2,025,833.33 computed as follows:Respondents are further ordered to jointly and solidarily pay complainant her performance bonuses and other benefits she used to receive similarly granted to her co-executive officers.
Basic Salary: 11/15/01 - 7/31/02 P220,000.00/mo. x 8.50 mos. = P1,870,000.00 13th month pay: P1,870,000.00/12 = P 155,833.33 Total = P2,025,833.33
Respondents are furthermore ordered to pay complainant moral damages in the amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) and exemplary damages in the amount of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00), as well as attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the entire award. The amount already received by complainant shall be considered as partial/advance payment of the judgment award in the final enforcement of the decision.
SO ORDERED.
The petition is impressed with merit.On November 4, 2004, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated December 20, 2004.
x x x x x x
Notably, the notice of voluntary retirement and the "Receipt, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim" partake the nature of a contract of adhesion, such that the petitioner had no hand in the preparation of these documents. Since a contract of adhesion is unilaterally prepared by only one party, and the only thing left to be done by the other party is to affix his/her signature, any ambiguity in its provisions or any question as to the voluntariness of its execution should be generally resolved against the party who drafted the document (Magellan Capital Management Corporation vs. Zosa, 355 SCRA 157 [2001]).
Since petitioner claims that she was merely coerced into signing the subject documents, the voluntariness of the execution thereof is squarely at issue and petitioner's claim was correctly given due course by the labor arbiter (JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 390 SCRA 223 [2002]). Notably, the labor arbiter did not only find that private respondents failed to prove the voluntariness of the execution of said documents, but it also found that private respondents" copy of the "Receipt and Release, Waiver and Quitclaim" contained insertions which were not found in petitioner's copy.
x x x x x x
Despite the foregoing considerations, public respondent NLRC reversed the labor arbiter's finding of illegal dismissal and relied heavily on the affidavits of "ATP Staff members" stating that petitioner volunteered herself to be included in the retirement program and therefore was not coerced to sign the notice of voluntary retirement and the quitclaim. Pitted against the foregoing circumstances showing the coercion employed upon petitioner, the affidavits deserve no weight and credence for they were executed by the executives employed with private respondent AMKOR and are therefore self-serving.
That petitioner had already accepted her separation pay, is of no moment and did not estop her from questioning the legality of her dismissal. x x x. That petitioner executed the waiver only on November 21, 2001, or after six (6) days from the signing of the notice of voluntary retirement, does not detract from the fact that petitioner was merely forced to resign and the waiver was an afterthought of private respondents to camouflage their misdeeds, as correctly noted by the labor arbiter.
There was therefore, no basis at all for public respondent NLRC's reversal of the labor arbiter's finding of illegal dismissal. As a consequence of petitioner's illegal dismissal, she is entitled to reinstatement and all other privileges withheld from her from the time of her dismissal up to the time of reinstatement. This is in consonance with Article 279 of the Labor Code, which provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement (Rodriguez , Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 393 SCRA 511 [2002]).
However, it is undeniable that the strained relations between the parties render it impracticable to reinstate petitioner who holds a key position as she has a hand in the operations of private respondent AMKOR. The award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is more appropriate. Thus, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement (Hantex Trading Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 390 SCRA 181 [2002]).
Moreover, the labor arbiter's award of moral damages of P5,000,000.00 and exemplary damages of P3,000,000.00 is excessive under the attendant circumstances. It is doctrinally settled that the power of the courts to grant damages and attorney's fees demands factual, legal and equitable justification (Ranola vs. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 1 [2000]). The Court therefore resolves to reasonably reduce the same, and taking into account the circumstances of the case (Asia Pacific Chartering Phils., Inc. vs. Farolan, 393 SCRA 454 [2002]), including the social and financial position of petitioner, private respondents are ordered to pay petitioner moral damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) and exemplary damages in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated October 1, 2002 and Resolution dated December 26, 2002 of public respondent NLRC are SET ASIDE and the Decision dated July 31, 2002 of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED, with MODIFICATION that in lieu of reinstatement, petitioner Nory A. Juangco is awarded separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, and the amount of moral damages and exemplary damages awarded to petitioner is hereby reduced to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) and Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00), respectively.
SO ORDERED.
By vigorously pursuing the litigation of his action against petitioner, private respondent clearly manifested that he has no intention of relinquishing his employment, which act is wholly incompatible to petitioner's assertion that he voluntarily resigned.But still, petitioners insist that since respondent already received her separation benefits, she can no longer claim that they coerced her to retire. On this point, the Court of Appeals ruled that employees who receive their separation pay are not barred from contesting the legality of their dismissal from the service and their acceptance of those benefits would not amount to estoppel. We agree. Otherwise, employees who have been forced to resign and accept their separation pay can no longer resort to legal remedies.