CASE 2016-0008: SILVERTEX WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG VS. TEODORA F. CAMPO (G.R. NO. 21141, 16 MARCH 2016, REYES J.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 13, 2013 and Resolution dated February 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124881 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the interest of six percent ( 6%) per annum of the total monetary award is to be computed from the date of finality of this Resolution, until full payment.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IN THIS CASE A WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM WAS FOUND FALSIFIED. BUT ASSUMING THERE WAS A WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM DULY EXECUTED CAN THERE STILL BE AN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL?

 

YES. EXECUTION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT DOES NOT FORECLOSE AN EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO PURSUE A CLAIM FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

 

“Even granting that such document was actually executed by the respondent, its execution was not fatal to the respondent’s case for illegal dismissal. The finding of illegal dismissal could still stand, as jurisprudence provides that “[a ]n employee’s execution of a final settlement and receipt of amounts agreed upon do not foreclose his right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal. “2”

 

CA GRANTED INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM TO BE COMPUTED FROM DATE OF DISMISSAL. IS THIS CORRECT?

 

NO. THE 6% SHALL BE COMPUTED FROM DATE THE RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY UNTIL FULL SATISFACTION.

 

“CA ruled that it should be at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum, to be computed from the date of dismissal on November 21, 2010 until full payment. To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, interest on the monetary awards shall only be computed from the date this Resolution becomes final and executory, until full satisfaction.29”

 

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE?

 

“Clearly then, given the vehement claim of the respondent that her signature on the resignation letter was a mere forgery, the evidence presented by the petitSUSSSioners to establish their defense of voluntary resignation failed to suffice.  Several other indicators cast doubt on the letter’s authenticity, as the NLRC itself cited in its Resolution dated November 29, 2011 that:  

 

As shown on records, the [respondent’s] original and genuine signature appeared for several times in her documents, evidence and pleadings x x x.  The signatures of the [respondent] therein manifest a similar stroke with an upper loop, downslide on the letter “t”, letters “c” and “a” not distinct from each other, downslide on the letter “p” and an upward loop on the letter “o”.  By a careful examination, the said signatures are far and different from the alleged [respondent’s] signatures on the “resignation letter, Waiver, Release and Quitclaims Statement and payslips” x x x presented by the [petitioners].  In the resignation letter in particular x x x, the letter “t” does not have an upper loop.  Also in the said documents x x x the letters “c” and “a” are distinct from each other, and the letter “p” x x x contains an outside downward loop which obviously differ from the original signature of the [respondent].  On the same tack, the [respondent] specifically denied under oath the genuineness of her signatures in the [petitioners’] documents as well as [their] truthfulness x x x.27 

 

The  foregoing  observations  of  the  NLRC  appeared  consistent  with  the PNP  Crime  Laboratory’s  report  that  the  signature  on  the  resignation letter  did  not  match  the  several  other  documents  supposedly  executed by  the  respondent.                                                               25  Id. at 219. 26  Id. 27 

 

The authenticity and due execution of the undated Waiver, Release and Quitclaims Statement purportedly signed by the respondent was also not sufficiently established. The QDR was not conclusive on the issue of its genuineness. Even granting that such document was actually executed by the respondent, its execution was not fatal to the respondent’s case for illegal dismissal. The finding of illegal dismissal could still stand, as jurisprudence provides that “[a ]n employee’s execution of a final settlement and receipt of amounts agreed upon do not foreclose his right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal. “28

 

All told, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the CA’s finding that the respondent was illegally dismissed and thus entitled to reinstatement and monetary awards plus interest. The reckoning date for the computation of the awarded interest, however, needs to be modified after the CA ruled that it should be at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum, to be computed from the date of dismissal on November 21, 2010 until full payment. To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, interest on the monetary awards shall only be computed from the date this Resolution becomes final and executory, until full satisfaction.29″

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0008-SILVERTEX

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.