G.R. No. 177114 January 21, 2010MANOLO A. PEAFLOR,Petitioner,vs.OUTDOOR CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NATHANIEL T. SYFU, President, MEDYLENE M. DEMOGENA, Finance Manager, and PAUL U. LEE, Chairman, Respondents.BRION,J.;Petitioner Manolo A. Peaflor (Peaflor) seeks the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision1dated December 29, 2006 and its resolution2dated March 14, 2007, through the present petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The assailed CA decision affirmed the September 24, 2002 decision3of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that in turn reversed the August 15, 2001 decision4of the Labor Arbiter.5THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTSPeaflor was hired on September 2, 1999 as probationary Human Resource Department (HRD) Manager of respondent Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation (Outdoor Clothing or the company). As HRD head, Peaflor was expected to (1) secure and maintain the right quality and quantity of people needed by the company; (2) maintain the harmonious relationship between the employees and management in a role that supports organizational goals and individual aspirations; and (3) represent the company in labor cases or proceedings. Two staff members were assigned to work with him to assist him in undertaking these functions.Peaflor claimed that his relationship with Outdoor Clothing went well during the first few months of his employment; he designed and created the companys Policy Manual, Personnel Handbook, Job Expectations, and Organizational Set-Up during this period. His woes began when the companys Vice President for Operations, Edgar Lee (Lee), left the company after a big fight between Lee and Chief Corporate Officer Nathaniel Syfu (Syfu). Because of his close association with Lee, Peaflor claimed that he was among those who bore Syfus ire.When Outdoor Clothing began undertaking its alleged downsizing program due to negative business returns, Peaflor alleged that his department had been singled out. On the pretext of retrenchment, Peaflors two staff members were dismissed, leaving him as the only member of Outdoor Clothings HRD and compelling him to perform all personnel-related work. He worked as a one-man department, carrying out all clerical, administrative and liaison work; he personally went to various government offices to process the companys papers.When an Outdoor Clothing employee, Lynn Padilla (Padilla), suffered injuries in a bombing incident, the company required Peaflor to attend to her hospitalization needs; he had to work outside office premises to undertake this task. As he was acting on the companys orders, Peaflor considered himself to be on official business, but was surprised when the company deducted six days salary corresponding to the time he assisted Padilla. According to Finance Manager Medylene Demogena (Demogena), he failed to submit his trip ticket, but Peaflor belied this claim as a trip ticket was required only when a company vehicle was used and he did not use any company vehicle when he attended to his off-premises work.6After Peaflor returned from his field work on March 13, 2000, his officemates informed him that while he was away, Syfu had appointed Nathaniel Buenaobra (Buenaobra) as the new HRD Manager. This information was confirmed by Syfus memorandum of March 10, 2000 to the entire office stating that Buenaobra was the concurrent HRD and Accounting Manager.7Peaflor was surprised by the news; he also felt betrayed and discouraged. He tried to talk to Syfu to clarify the matter, but was unable to do so. Peaflor claimed that under these circumstances, he had no option but to resign. He submitted a letter to Syfu declaring his irrevocable resignation from his employment with Outdoor Clothing effective at the close of office hours on March 15, 2000.8Peaflor then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter, claiming that he had been constructively dismissed. He included in his complaint a prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, illegally deducted salaries, damages, attorneys fees, and other monetary claims.Outdoor Clothing denied Peaflors allegation of constructive dismissal. It posited instead that Peaflor had voluntarily resigned from his work. Contrary to Peaflors statement that he had been dismissed from employment upon Syfus appointment of Buenaobra as the new HRD Manager on March 10, 2000, Peaflor had in fact continued working for the company until his resignation on March 15, 2000. The company cited as evidence the security report that Peaflor himself prepared and signed on March 13, 2000.9Outdoor Clothing disclaimed liability for any of Peaflors monetary claims. Since Peaflor had voluntarily resigned, Outdoor Clothing alleged that he was not entitled to any backwages and damages. The company likewise denied making any illegal deduction from Peaflors salary; while deductions were made, they were due to Peaflors failure to report for work during the dates the company questioned. As a probationary employee, he was not yet entitled to any leave credit that would offset his absences.In his August 15, 2001 decision, the labor arbiter found that Peaflor had been illegally dismissed.10Outdoor Clothing was consequently ordered to reinstate Peaflor to his former or to an equivalent position, and to pay him his illegally deducted salary for six days, proportionate 13th month pay, attorneys fees, moral and exemplary damages.Outdoor Clothing appealed the labor arbiters decision with the NLRC. It insisted that Peaflor had not been constructively dismissed, claiming that Peaflor tendered his resignation on March 1, 2000 because he saw no future with the corporation due to its dire financial standing. Syfu alleged that he was compelled to appoint Buenaobra as concurrent HRD Manager through a memorandum dated March 1, 2000 to cover the position that Peaflor would soon vacate.11The appointment was also made to address the personnel matters that had to be taken cared of while Peaflor was on unauthorized leave. Incidentally, Outdoor Clothing alleged that Peaflor had already been given two notices, on March 6 and 11, 2000 (absence without official leave memoranda or the AWOL memoranda), for his unauthorized absences. In a memorandum dated March 3, 2000 addressed to Syfu, Buenaobra accepted the appointment.12Peaflor contested Syfus March 1, 2000 memorandum, Buenaobras March 3, 2000 memorandum, and the AWOL memoranda, claiming these pieces of evidence were fabricated and were never presented before the labor arbiter. He pointed out that nothing in this resignation letter indicated that it was submitted to and received by Syfu on March 1, 2000. He claimed that it was submitted on March 15, 2000, the same date he made his resignation effective. The AWOL memoranda could not be relied on, as he was never furnished copies of these. Moreover, he could not be on prolonged absence without official leave, as his residence was just a few meters away from the office.The NLRC apparently found Outdoor Clothings submitted memoranda sufficient to overturn the labor arbiters decision.13It characterized Peaflors resignation as a response, not to the allegedly degrading and hostile treatment that he was subjected to by Syfu, but to Outdoor Clothings downward financial spiral. Buenaobras appointment was made only after Peaflor had submitted his resignation letter, and this was made to cover the vacancy Peaflors resignation would create. Thus, Peaflor was not eased out from his position as HRD manager. No malice likewise was present in the companys decision to dismiss Peaflors two staff members; the company simply exercised its management prerogative to address the financial problems it faced. Peaflor, in fact, drafted the dismissal letters of his staff members. In the absence of any illegal dismissal, no basis existed for the monetary awards the labor arbiter granted.Peaflor anchored his certiorari petition with the CA on the claim that the NLRC decision was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, although he essentially adopted the same arguments he presented before the labor arbiter and the NLRC.In a decision dated December 29, 2006,14the CA affirmed the NLRCs decision, stating that Peaflor failed to present sufficient evidence supporting his claim that he had been constructively dismissed. The CA ruled that Peaflors resignation was knowingly and voluntarily made. Accordingly, it dismissed Peaflors certiorari petition. It likewise denied the motion for reconsideration that Peaflor subsequently filed.15Faced with these CA actions, Peaflor filed with us the present petition for review on certiorari.THE PARTIES ARGUMENTSPeaflor insists that, contrary to the findings of the NLRC and the CA, he had been constructively dismissed from his employment with Outdoor Clothing. He alleges that the dismissal of his two staff members, the demeaning liaison work he had to perform as HRD Manager, the salary deduction for his alleged unauthorized absences, and the appointment of Buenaobra as the new HRD manager even before he tendered his resignation, were clear acts of discrimination that made his continued employment with the Outdoor Clothing unbearable. He was thus forced to resign.Outdoor Clothing claims that Peaflor voluntarily resigned from his work and his contrary allegations were all unsubstantiated. The HRD was not singled out for retrenchment, but was simply the first to lose its staff members because the company had to downsize. Thus, all HRD work had to be performed by Peaflor. Instead of being grateful that he was not among those immediately dismissed due to the companys retrenchment program, Peaflor unreasonably felt humiliated in performing work that logically fell under his department; insisted on having a full staff complement; absented himself from work without official leave; and demanded payment for his unauthorized absences.THE ISSUE and THE COURTS RULINGThe Court finds the petition meritorious.A preliminary contentious issue is Outdoor Clothings argument that we should dismiss the petition outright because it raises questions of facts, not the legal questions that should be raised in a Rule 45 petition.16We see no merit in this argument as the rule that a Rule 45 petition deals only with legal issues is not an absolute rule; it admits of exceptions. In the labor law setting, we wade into factual issues when conflict of factual findings exists among the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA. This is the exact situation that obtains in the present case since the labor arbiter found facts supporting the conclusion that there had been constructive dismissal, while the NLRCs and the CAs factual findings contradicted the labor arbiters findings.17Under this situation, the conflicting factual findings below are not binding on us, and we retain the authority to pass on the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom.18The petition turns on the question of whether Peaflors undisputed resignation was a voluntary or a forced one, in the latter case making it a constructive dismissal equivalent to an illegal dismissal. A critical fact necessary in resolving this issue is whether Peaflor filed his letter of resignation before or after the appointment of Buenaobra as the new/concurrent HRD manager. This question also gives rise to the side issue of when Buenaobras appointment was made. If the resignation letter was submitted before Syfus appointment of Buenaobra as new HRD manager, little support exists for Peaflors allegation that he had been forced to resign due to the prevailing abusive and hostile working environment. Buenaobras appointment would then be simply intended to cover the vacancy created by Peaflors resignation. On the other hand, if the resignation letter was submitted after the appointment of Buenaobra, then factual basis exists indicating that Peaflor had been constructively dismissed as his resignation was a response to the unacceptable appointment of another person to a position he still occupied.The question of when Peaflor submitted his resignation letter arises because this letter undisputably made was undated. Despite Peaflors claim of having impressive intellectual and academic credentials,19his resignation letter, for some reason, was undated. Thus, the parties have directly opposing claims on the matter. Peaflor claims that he wrote and filed the letter on the same date he made his resignation effective March 15, 2000. Outdoor Clothing, on the other hand, contends that the letter was submitted on March 1, 2000, for which reason Syfu issued a memorandum of the same date appointing Buenaobra as the concurrent HRD manager; Syfus memorandum cited Peaflors intention to resign so he could devote his time to teaching. The company further cites in support of its case Buenaobras March 3, 2000 memorandum accepting his appointment. Another piece of evidence is the Syfu memorandum of March 10, 2000, which informed the office of the appointment of Buenaobra as the concurrent Head of HRD the position that Peaflor occupied. Two other memoranda are alleged to exist, namely, the AWOL memoranda of March 6 and 11, 2000, allegedly sent to Penaflor.Several reasons arising directly from these pieces of evidence lead us to conclude that Peaflor did indeed submit his resignation letter on March, 15, 2000, i.e., on the same day that it was submitted.First, we regard the Syfu memorandum of March 1, 2000 and the memorandum of Buenaobra of March 3, 2000 accepting the position of HRD Head to be highly suspect. In our view, these memoranda, while dated, do not constitute conclusive evidence of their dates of preparation and communication. Surprisingly, Peaflor was never informed about these memoranda when they directly concerned him, particularly the turnover of responsibilities to Buenaobra if indeed Peaflor had resigned on March 1, 2000 and a smooth turnover to Buenaobra was intended. Even the recipients of these communications do not appear to have signed for and dated their receipt. The AWOL memoranda, to be sure, should have been presented with proof of service if they were to have any binding effect on Peaflor.Second,we find it surprising that these pieces of evidence pointing to a March 1, 2000 resignation specifically, Syfus March 1, 2000 memorandum to Buenaobra about Penaflors resignation and Buenaobras own acknowledgment and acceptance were only presented to the NLRC on appeal, not before the labor arbiter. The matter was not even mentioned in the companys position paper filed with the labor arbiter.20While the presentation of evidence at the NLRC level on appeal is not unheard of in labor cases,21still sufficient explanation must be adduced to explain why this irregular practice should be allowed. In the present case, Outdoor Clothing totally failed to explain the reason for its omission. This failure, to us, is significant, as these were the clinching pieces of evidence that allowed the NLRC to justify the reversal of the labor arbiters decision.Third, the circumstances and other evidence surrounding Peaflors resignation support his claim that he was practically compelled to resign from the company.Foremost among these is the memorandum of March 10, 2000 signed by Syfu informing the whole office ("To: All concerned") about the designation of Buenaobra as concurrent Accounting and HRD Manager. In contrast with the suspect memoranda we discussed above, this memorandum properly bore signatures acknowledging receipt and dates of receipt by at least five company officials, among them the readable signature of Demogene and one Agbayani; three of them acknowledged receipt on March 13, 2000, showing that indeed it was only on that day that the appointment of Buenaobra to the HRD position was disclosed. This evidence is fully consistent with Peaflors position that it was only in the afternoon of March 13, 2000 that he was told, informally at that, that Buenaobra had taken over his position. It explains as well why as late as March 13, 2000, Peaflor still prepared and signed a security report,22and is fully consistent with his position that on that day he was still working on the excuse letter of certain sales personnel of the company.23We note that the company only belatedly questioned the motivation that Peaflor cited for his discriminatory treatment, i.e., that he was caught in the bitter fight between Syfu and Lee, then Vice President for Operations, that led the latter to leave the company.24After Lee left, Peaflor alleged that those identified with Lee were singled out for adverse treatment, citing in this regard the downsizing of HRD that occurred on or about this time and which resulted in his one-man HRD operation. We say this downsizing was only "alleged" as the company totally failed despite Penaflors claim of discriminatory practice to adduce evidence showing that there had indeed been a legitimate downsizing. Other than its bare claim that it was facing severe financial problems, Outdoor Clothing never presented any evidence to prove both the reasons for its alleged downsizing and the fact of such downsizing. No evidence was ever offered to rebut Peaflors claim that his staff members were dismissed to make his life as HRD Head difficult. To be sure, Peaflors participation in the termination of his staff members employment cannot be used against him, as the termination of employment was a management decision that Peaflor, at his level, could not have effectively contested without putting his own job on the line.Peaflors own service with the company deserves close scrutiny. He started working for the company on September 2, 1999 so that by March 1, 2000, his probationary period would have ended and he would have become a regular employee. We find it highly unlikely that Peaflor would resign on March 1, 2000 and would then simply leave given his undisputed record of having successfully worked within his probationary period on the companys Policy Manual, Personnel Handbook, Job Expectations, and Organizational Set-up. It does not appear sound and logical to us that an employee would tender his resignation on the very same day he was entitled by law to be considered a regular employee, especially when a downsizing was taking place and he could have availed of its benefits if he would be separated from the service as a regular employee. It was strange, too, that he would submit his resignation on March 1, 2000 and keep completely quiet about this development until its effective date on March 15, 2000. In the usual course, the turnover alone of responsibilities and work loads to the successor in a small company would have prevented the matter from being completely under wraps for 10 days before any announcement was ever made. That Peaflor was caught by surprise by the turnover of his post to Buenaobra is in fact indicated by the companys own evidence that Peaflor still submitted a security report on March 13, 2000. On the whole, Peaflors record with the company is not that of a company official who would simply and voluntarily tender a precipitate resignation on the excuse that he would devote his time to teaching a lame excuse at best considering that March is the month the semester usually ends and is two or three months away from the start of another school year.In our view, it is more consistent with human experience that Peaflor indeed learned of the appointment of Buenaobra only on March 13, 2000 and reacted to this development through his resignation letter after realizing that he would only face hostility and frustration in his working environment. Three very basic labor law principles support this conclusion and militate against the companys case.The first is the settled rule that in employee termination disputes, the employer bears the burden of proving that the employees dismissal was for just and valid cause.25That Peaflor did indeed file a letter of resignation does not help the companys case as, other than the fact of resignation, the company must still prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.26There can be no valid resignation where the act was made under compulsion or under circumstances approximating compulsion, such as when an employees act of handing in his resignation was a reaction to circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign.27In sum, the evidence does not support the existence of voluntariness in Peaflors resignation.1 a vv p h i 1Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee.28As shown above, Peaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of the companys case, particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In such contest of evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peaflors favor. Thus, we find that Peaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and discriminatory working environment he found himself in, particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated in the appointment of another HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Where no less than the companys chief corporate officer was against him, Peaflor had no alternative but to resign from his employment.29Last but not the least, we have repeatedly given significance in abandonment and constructive dismissal cases to the employees reaction to the termination of his employment and have asked the question: is the complaint against the employer merely a convenient afterthought subsequent to an abandonment or a voluntary resignation? We find from the records that Peaflor sought almost immediate official recourse to contest his separation from service through a complaint for illegal dismissal.30This is not the act of one who voluntarily resigned; his immediate complaints characterize him as one who deeply felt that he had been wronged.WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitioners petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSE the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87865 promulgated on December 29, 2006 and March 14, 2007, respectively. We REINSTATE the decision of the labor arbiter dated August 15, 2001, with the MODIFICATION that, due to the strained relations between the parties, respondents are additionally ordered to pay separation pay equivalent to the petitioners one months salary.Costs against the respondents.SO ORDERED.