SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 222980. March 20, 2017.]

LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ , petitioner, vs . PARK N RIDE, INC./VICEST

(PHILS) INC./GRAND LEISURE CORP./SPS. VICENTE & ESTELITA B.
JAVIER , respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

Natural expressions of an employer do not automatically make for a hostile work

atmosphere. The totality of circumstances in this case negates petitioner Lourdes C.
Rodriguez's claim of constructive dismissal.
This resolves a Petition for Review 1 assailing the Court of Appeals' December
15, 2015 Decision 2 and February 17, 2016 Resolution. 3 The Court of Appeals held that
there was no illegal dismissal, but ordered respondents Park N Ride Incorporated (Park
N Ride), Vicest Philippines Incorporated (Vicest Phils.), Grand Leisure Corporation
(Grand Leisure), and Spouses Vicente and Estelita B. Javier (Javier Spouses) to pay
Lourdes C. Rodriguez (Rodriguez) service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay for
2006 to 2009, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum, from date of nality of
the decision until full payment. 4
On October 7, 2009, Rodriguez led a Complaint 5 for constructive illegal
dismissal, non-payment of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, including
claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against Park N Ride,
Vicest Phils., Grand Leisure, and the Javier Spouses.
In her Position Paper, 6 Rodriguez alleged that she was employed on January 30,
1984 as Restaurant Supervisor at Vicest Phils. 7 Four (4) years later, the restaurant
business closed. Rodriguez was transferred to o ce work and became an
Administrative and Finance Assistant to Estelita Javier (Estelita). 8 One of Rodriguez's
duties was to open the office in Makati City at 8:00 a.m. daily. 9
The Javier Spouses established other companies, namely: Buildmore
Development and Construction Corporation, Asset Resources Development
Corporation, and Grand Leisure. 1 0 Rodriguez was also required to handle the personnel
and administrative matters of these companies without additional compensation. 1 1
She likewise took care of the household concerns of the Javier Spouses, such as
preparing payrolls of drivers and helpers, shopping for household needs, and looking
after the spouses' house whenever they travelled abroad. 1 2
Sometime in 2000, the Javier Spouses established Park N Ride, a business that
provided terminal parking and leasing. 1 3 Although the company's main business was in
Lawton, Manila, its personnel and administrative department remained in Makati City. 1 4
Rodriguez handled the administrative, nance, and warehousing departments of Park N
Ride. 1 5 Every Saturday, after opening the Makati o ce at 8:00 a.m., Rodriguez was
required to report at the Lawton o ce at 11:00 a.m. to substitute the Head Cashier,
who would be on day-off. 1 6
She allegedly worked from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Mondays to Saturdays; was on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 call on Sundays; and worked during Christmas and other holidays. 1 7 She was deducted
an equivalent of two (2) days' wage for every day of absence and was not paid any
service incentive leave pay. 1 8 On one occasion, Rodriguez asked the Javier Spouses if
she could go home by 10:00 a.m. to attend a family reunion, but her request was
denied. 1 9
The Javier Spouses' treatment of Rodriguez became unbearable; thus, on March
25, 2009, she led her resignation letter effective April 25, 2009. 2 0 The Javier Spouses
allegedly did not accept her resignation and convinced her to reconsider and stay on. 2 1
However, her experience became worse. 2 2 Rodriguez claimed that toward the end of
her employment, Estelita was always unreasonable and hot-headed, and would belittle
and embarrass her in the presence of co-workers. 2 3
On September 22, 2009, Rodriguez went on her usual "pamalengke" for the
Spouses. 2 4 Later, she proceeded to open the Makati o ce. 2 5 Estelita was mad at her
when they nally talked over the phone, berating her for opening the o ce late. 2 6 She
allegedly told her that if she did not want to continue with her work, the company could
manage without her. 2 7 CAIHTE

Thus, Rodriguez did not report for work the next day, and on September 26, 2009,
she wrote the Javier Spouses a letter 2 8 expressing her gripes at them. She intimated
that they were always finding fault with her to push her to resign. 2 9
On October 6, 2009, the Javier Spouses replied to her letter, allegedly accepting
her resignation. 3 0
Rodriguez prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement; full back wages;
service incentive leave pay; proportional 13th month pay; moral damages of
P100,000.00; exemplary damages of P100,000.00; and attorney's fees. 3 1
In their Position Paper, 3 2 Javier Spouses stated that they were the directors and
o cers of Park N Ride, Vicest Phils., and Grand Leisure. 3 3 In 1984, they hired
Rodriguez as a nutritionist in their fast food business. 3 4 Vicest (Phils.), Inc., the
spouses' construction business, hired Rodriguez as an employee when the fast food
business closed. 3 5 When the construction business became slow, Park N Ride hired
Rodriguez as Administrative Officer. 3 6
Javier Spouses trusted Rodriguez with both their businesses and personal
affairs, and this made her more senior than any of her colleagues at work. 3 7 She was
the custodian of 201 employee les, representative to courts and agencies, and had
access and information on the Javier Spouses' nances. She was given authority to
transact with business and banking institutions and became a signatory to their bank
accounts. 3 8 She was also given custody over the deeds and titles of ownership over
properties of the Javier Spouses. 3 9
However, Rodriguez was allegedly emotionally sensitive and prone to occasional
"tampo" when she would be reprimanded or cited for tasks unaccomplished. 4 0 She
would then be absent after such reprimands and would eventually return after a few
days. 4 1 For instance, in the second quarter of 2008, Rodriguez tendered her resignation
letter. 4 2 Three (3) days later, however, she returned to work. 4 3 In the rst quarter of
2009, she resigned again but did not push through with it. 4 4
On September 22, 2009, the Javier Spouses inquired from Rodriguez about an
overdue contract with a vendor. 4 5 Rodriguez offered no explanation for the delay, and
other employees heard her say that she was going to resign. 4 6
On September 23, 2009, Rodriguez did not report for work. 4 7 On September 26,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 2009, when she still has not reported for work after three days, a letter 4 8 was sent to
her citing her continued and unauthorized absence. "She was told that her resignation
could not be processed because she had not completed her employment clearance
and she was unable to properly turnover her tasks to her assistant." 4 9 She was asked
to report on September 30, 2009 or, at the very least, to reply in writing on or before
October 7, 2009. 5 0 Rodriguez neither reported for work on September 30, 2009 nor
submitted any reply to the letter sent to her. 5 1
Rodriguez allegedly continued to ignore the requests for her to complete the
turnover of her tasks and responsibilities and refused to cooperate in tracing the
documents in her custody. Corollary to this, it was discovered that the company check
books were missing; that Rodriguez had unliquidated cash advances of not less than
P500,000.00; and that two (2) checks were deposited in her personal account
amounting to P936,000.00. 5 2
The Javier Spouses claimed that Rodriguez was not entitled to service incentive
leave pay, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and director's fee. 5 3 They
averred that they were willing to pay Rodriguez the 13th month pay differentials, as
soon as Rodriguez completed her clearance. 5 4
On May 26, 2010, Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam (Labor Arbiter Macam)
rendered a Decision 5 5 dismissing Rodriguez's Complaint for lack of merit. According
to the Decision, the summary of evidence pointed to the voluntariness of Rodriguez's
resignation rather than the existence of a hostile and frustrating working environment.
5 6 The Javier Spouses were ordered to pay Rodriguez her proportionate 13th month
pay for 2009 in the amount of P19,892.55. 5 7
Rodriguez appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The
Commission, in its Decision 5 8 dated May 30, 2011, granted Rodriguez's appeal and
modi ed Labor Arbiter Macam's Decision. The Commission ruled that Rodriguez was
illegally dismissed and awarded her back wages, separation pay, 13th month pay
differentials, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
However, on the Javier Spouses' Motion for Reconsideration, 5 9 the Commission
set aside its May 30, 2011 Decision and reinstated Labor Arbiter Macam's May 26,
2010 Decision.
Rodriguez led a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the
Commission in its Resolution 6 0 dated April 20, 2012.
Rodriguez led a Rule 65 Petition 6 1 before the Court of Appeals imputing grave
abuse of discretion on the National Labor Relations Commission.
In the Decision dated December 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals held that there
was no constructive dismissal, but rather Rodriguez voluntarily resigned from her
employment. The Decision disposed as follows:
We SET ASIDE the Resolution dated 15 December 2011 of the National
Labor Relations Commission, and instead we rule that there was no illegal
dismissal, and we ORDER private respondents to pay petitioner Rodriguez the
following: 1) service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay for the years 2006
to 2009; and 2) attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the wages awarded.
All amounts awarded shall be subject to interest of 6% per annum, from the date
of finality of this Decision, until fully paid. 6 2 (Emphasis in the original).
Rodriguez sought reconsideration. 6 3 The Court of Appeals denied the motion in
its Resolution dated February 17, 2016. 6 4
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Hence, this Petition 6 5 was filed, revolving around the following issues:
First, whether petitioner was constructively dismissed;
And lastly, whether petitioner was entitled to full service incentive leave pay and
damages.
Petitioner maintains that she has been constructively dismissed. She points to
the A davits 6 6 of six (6) of her former co-workers allegedly supporting her claim of
unbearable working conditions; and Estelita's statement on September 22, 2009, "Kung
ayaw mo na ng ginagawa mo, we can manage!" 6 7 Petitioner further claims that she is
entitled to service incentive leave pay for her entire 25 years of service, and not only up
to three (3) years. 6 8 Finally, she adds that she should be awarded moral and exemplary
damages because of the inhumane treatment of her employers. DETACa

We partly grant the Petition.

At the onset, we stress that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 6 9 Factual ndings of the Labor
Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, if supported by substantial
evidence and when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon
this Court when there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. 7 0 In the present case,
due to lack of any palpable error, mistake, or misappreciation of facts, this Court
discerns no compelling reason to reverse the consistent ndings of the appellate court
and the labor tribunals.
There is constructive dismissal when an employer's act of clear discrimination,
insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to
foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment. 7 1 It exists
where there is involuntary resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable
conditions set by the employer. We have held that the standard for constructive
dismissal is "whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt
compelled to give up his employment under the circumstances." 7 2
The unreasonably harsh conditions that compel resignation on the part of an
employee must be way beyond the occasional discomforts brought about by the
misunderstandings between the employer and employee. Strong words may
sometimes be exchanged as the employer describes her expectations or as the
employee narrates the conditions of her work environment and the obstacles she
encounters as she accomplishes her assigned tasks. As in every human relationship,
there are bound to be disagreements.
However, when these strong words from the employer happen without palpable
reason or are expressed only for the purpose of degrading the dignity of the employee,
then a hostile work environment will be created. In a sense, the doctrine of constructive
dismissal has been a consistent vehicle by this Court to assert the dignity of labor.
However, this is not the situation in this case.
The National Labor Relations Commission did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion in nding that petitioner was not constructively dismissed but that she
voluntarily resigned from employment.
The a davits of petitioner's former co-workers were mere narrations of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioner's various duties. Far from showing the alleged harsh treatment that petitioner
suffered, the a davits rather reveal the full trust and con dence reposed by
respondents on petitioner. Petitioner was entrusted with respondents' assets, the care
and safeguarding of their house during their trips abroad, custody of company les and
papers, and delicate matters such as the release, deposit, and withdrawals of checks
from their personal accounts as well as accounts of their companies. Indeed, it was,
alleged that petitioner was treated by the respondents as part of the family.
Petitioner's unequivocal intent to relinquish her position was manifest when she
submitted her letters of resignation. The resignation letters dated May 1, 2008 7 3 and
March 25, 2009 7 4 contained words of gratitude, which could hardly come from an
employee forced to resign. These letters were reinforced by petitioner's very own act of
not reporting for work despite respondents' directive.
As correctly appreciated by Labor Arbiter Macam:
Complainant was not pressured into resigning. It seems that the
complainant was not comfortable anymore with the fact that she was always at
the beck and call of the respondent Javier spouses. Her supervisory and
managerial functions appear to be impeding her time with her family to such
extent that she was always complaining of her extended hours with the
company. It is of no moment that respondent spouses in many occasions
reprimanded complainant as long as it was reasonably connected and an
offshoot of the work or business of respondents. . . Keeping in mind that she
enjoyed the privilege of working closely with respondents and had their full trust
and con dence, the summary of evidence points to the existence of
voluntariness in complainant's resignation, more for personal reasons rather
than the existence of a hostile and frustrating working environment. 7 5
From the representation of petitioner, what triggered her resignation was the
incident on September 22, 2009 when Estelita told her "Kung ayaw mo na ng ginagawa
mo, we can manage!" 7 6 These words, however, are not sufficient to make the continued
employment of petitioner impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
The Court of Appeals correctly observed that the utterance of Estelita was more
a consequence of her spontaneous outburst of feelings resulting from petitioner's
failure to perform a task that was long overdue, rather than an act to force petitioner to
resign from work. 7 7 It appears that petitioner was asked to nish assigned tasks and
liquidate cash advances. The a davit of Estelita was unrebutted, and further
corroborated by Rhea Sienna L. Padrid, Accounting Assistant II of Park N Ride, in her
Affidavit with Cash Advances Report. 7 8 Estelita's affidavit read in part:
(2) During the middle part of December 2008, when the Accounting Division
(Mrs. Rhea Padrin) audited the company books, report showed that the
unliquidated Cash Advances of Lourdes Rodriguez had already ballooned
to less than P7,000,000.00 some dating as early as year 2004. I repeatedly
requested her to liquidate them even removing some of her daily duties so
she could focus on her Cash Advances. Inspite of my repeated requests for
her to focus on the liquidation of these Cash Advances, Lourdes Rodriguez
failed to liquidate them before Christmas. Due to this, I requested her to go
with us to Pansol after Christmas so I could help her in her liquidation.
. . . I also wanted to get all the cash left and unused that I left with her when
the family left for the United States. I also wanted to get my salary from
her which I entrusted for her to claim. I could not nd any reason why
Lourdes Rodriguez could not liquidate her Cash Advances.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 (3) Lourdes Rodriguez also had two checks in the amount of P936,000.00
which she deposited to her personal account contrary to company policy.
(4) Because of said actions of Lourdes Rodriguez, I had lost trust and
con dence in her ability to perform her job faithfully, especially in her
duties which would involve money matters, and had thus initiated an
investigation in relation thereto.
aDSIHc

(5) When year 2009 started and Lourdes Rodriguez could not liquidate her
Cash Advances, I started getting the company passbooks and personal
passbooks from her. I also started getting the certi cates of time deposits
and titles with her. I started having other staff do the deposits and
withdrawals for the company and for me. I started handling the treasury
functions of the company. I started talking to the officers of our banks.
(6) It was after I had commenced queries into her activities and stopped
entrusting her with money, deposits and cash withdrawals that she had
tendered her resignation last March 25, 2009.
(7) After Lourdes Rodriguez submitted her resignation, I talked to her and
accepted her resignation and instructed her to transfer all the Admin les
of the company under her custody to my house. Lourdes Rodriguez had all
the important files of the company with her.
(8) Inspite of the acceptance of resignation which was to take effect 25 April
2009, Lourdes Rodriguez stayed on, slowly and reluctantly liquidating her
Cash Advances. I allowed her to stay on because I wanted her to liquidate
all her Cash Advances. Up to this date, Lourdes Rodriguez has failed to
liquidate her Cash Advances amounting to Php6,314,641.24. 7 9
Petitioner was neither terminated on September 22, 2009 nor was she
constructively dismissed. There was no showing of bad faith or malicious design by the
respondents that would make her work conditions unbearable. 8 0 On the other hand, it
is a fact that petitioner enjoyed the privilege of working closely with the Javier Spouses
and having their full trust and con dence. Spontaneous expressions of an employer do
not automatically render a hostile work atmosphere. The circumstances in this case
negate its presence.

II

On the monetary claims, petitioner is not entitled to moral and exemplary

damages considering that she was not illegally dismissed. 8 1
On the other hand, with respect to service incentive leave pay, the Court of
Appeals limited the award thereof to three (3) years (2006 to 2009) only due to the
prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. It held:
Article 95 of the Labor Code provides that every employee who has
rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service
incentive leave pay of ve days with pay, subject to exceptions ( i.e.: when the
employee is already enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least ve days; and
when the employee is employed in an establishment regularly employing less
than ten employees).
It was not shown here that petitioner Rodriguez was enjoying vacation
leave with pay of at least ve days while being employed by private
respondents Spouses Javier; it was not shown that private respondents
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Spouses Javier were merely employing less than 10 employees (on the contrary,
private respondent spouses Javier stated that they were employing less than 15
employees). Hence, the award of service incentive leave pay to petitioner
Rodriguez was proper.
Private respondents Spouses Javier employed petitioner Rodriguez for 25
years. Applying the prescriptive period for money claims under Article 291 of the
Labor Code however, petitioner Rodriguez should only be entitled to the three
years' worth of service incentive pay for the years 2006 to 2009.
However, Auto Bus Transport System, Inc. v. Bautista 8 2 clari ed the correct
reckoning of the prescriptive period for service incentive leave pay:
It is essential at this point, however, to recognize that the service
incentive leave is a curious animal in relation to other bene ts granted by the
law to every employee. In the case of service incentive leave, the employee may
choose to either use his leave credits or commute it to its monetary equivalent if
not exhausted at the end of the year. Furthermore, if the employee entitled to
service incentive leave does not use or commute the same, he is entitled upon
his resignation or separation from work to the commutation of his accrued
service incentive leave. As enunciated by the Court in Fernandez v. NLRC:
The clear policy of the Labor Code is to grant service incentive
leave pay to workers in all establishments, subject to a few
exceptions. Section 2, Rule V, Book III of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations provides that "[e]very employee who has rendered
at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service
incentive leave of ve days with pay." Service incentive leave is a
right which accrues to every employee who has served "within 12
months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the
employee started working, including authorized absences and
paid regular holidays unless the working days in the
establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in
the employment contracts, is less than 12 months, in which case
said period shall be considered as one year." It is also
"commutable to its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at
the end of the year. " In other words, an employee who has served
for one year is entitled to it. He may use it as leave days or he may
collect its monetary value. To limit the award to three years, as the
solicitor general recommends, is to unduly restrict such right.
Correspondingly, it can be conscientiously deduced that the cause of
action of an entitled employee to claim his service incentive leave pay accrues
from the moment the employer refuses to remunerate its monetary equivalent if
the employee did not make use of said leave credits but instead chose to avail
of its commutation. Accordingly, if the employee wishes to accumulate his
leave credits and opts for its commutation upon his resignation or separation
from employment, his cause of action to claim the whole amount of his
accumulated service incentive leave shall arise when the employer fails to pay
such amount at the time of his resignation or separation from employment.
Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this peculiarity of the
service incentive leave, we can conclude that the three (3)-year prescriptive
period commences , not at the end of the year when the employee becomes
entitled to the commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time
when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after
demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 services , as the case may be.
The above construal of Art. 291, vis-à-vis the rules on service incentive
leave, is in keeping with the rudimentary principle that in the implementation
and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing
regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration. The policy is to extend the applicability of the decree to a greater
number of employees who can avail of the bene ts under the law, which is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and
protection to labor. 8 3 (Emphasis supplied). ETHIDa

Thus, the prescriptive period with respect to petitioner's claim for her entire
service incentive leave pay commenced only from the time of her resignation or
separation from employment. Since petitioner had led her complaint on October 7,
2009, or a few days after her resignation in September 2009, her claim for service
incentive leave pay has not prescribed. Accordingly, petitioner must be awarded service
incentive leave pay for her entire 25 years of service — from 1984 to 2009 — and not
only three (3) years' worth (2006 to 2009) as determined by the Court of Appeals.
Finally, we modify the portion of the fallo pertaining to the award of the 13th
month pay to conform to the body of the Court of Appeals' Decision.
WHEREFORE , the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED . The Court of Appeals
Decision dated December 15, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 125440 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION as to the amounts awarded. Respondents are ORDERED to pay
Lourdes C. Rodriguez the following:
1) Service incentive leave pay for the years 1984 to 2009;
2) 13th month pay differential for the years 2006 to 2008;
3) Proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2009; and
4) Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the wages awarded.
All amounts awarded shall be subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum,
from the date of finality of this Decision, until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., * Mendoza and Martires, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

* Designated additional member per Raffle dated March 15, 2017.

1. Rollo, pp. 10-35. The Petition was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2. Id. at 36-51. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and
concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C.
Lantion of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. Id. at 50-51. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela
and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C.
Lantion of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 49.

5. Id. at 65-67.
6. Id. at 68-84.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 7. Id. at 69.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 70.

10. Id. at 70.

11. Id.
12. Id. at 70-71.
13. Id. at 71.
14. Id.

15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 70-71.
18. Id. at 70.

19. Id. at 73.

20. Id. at 85.
21. Id. at 74.
22. Id.
23. Id.

24. Id.
25. Id. at 74-75.
26. Id. at 75.
27. Id.
28. Id. at 87.

29. Id.
30. Id. at 76.
31. Id. at 82-83.
32. Id. at 88-96.

33. Id. at 88.

34. Id. at 88-89.
35. Id. at 89.
36. Id.
37. Id.

38. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 39. Id.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 90.
42. Id. at 97.

43. Id.
44. Id.
45. Id.
46. Id.
47. Id.

48. Id. at 98.

49. Id.
50. Id.
51. Id. at 91.

52. Id. at 94.

53. Id. at 94.
54. Id.
55. Id. at 150-159.
56. Id. at 157.

57. Id. at 159.

58. Id. at 213-227. The Decision was penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred
in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go of
the First Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.

59. Id. at 230-249.

60. Id. at 284-285; The Resolution was penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and
concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles.

61. Id. at 286-315.

62. Id. at 49.
63. Id. at 52-64.
64. Id. at 50-51.

65. Id. at 10-33.

66. Id. at 116-118 (Affidavits of Benedicta dela Pacion, Jessie D. Mamorno, Julie M. Barcena);
rollo, pp. 134-135 (Affidavits of Glenda R. Carreon and Heidi C. Lamoste); rollo, pp. 189-
190 (Affidavit of Rhea Sienna L. Padrid).
67. Rollo, p. 23.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 68. Id. at 29.
69. Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club v. National Labor Relations Commission, 570 Phil. 535, 548
(2008) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].

70. Duldulao v. Court of Appeals, 546 Phil. 22, 30 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division];
Dangan v. National Labor Relations Commission, 212 Phil. 653, 658 (1984) [Per J.
Gutierrez, Jr., First Division].
71. Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., 701 Phil. 612, 638-639 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division]; Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank) , 546 Phil. 140, 153 (2007)
[Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
72. Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., 701 Phil. 612, 639 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division];
Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club v. National Labor Relations Commission, 570 Phil. 535,
548 (2008) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].

73. Rollo, p. 249. The letter states:

 "With regret, I am tendering my resignation effective 25 May 2008.
 Thank you for the privilege of working with you and your companies for twenty four (24)
years."
74. Id. at 85. The letter states:
 "With regret, I am tendering my resignation effective 25 April 2009.

 Thank you for the privilege of working with you and your companies for twenty five (25)
years. GOD BLESS and more power to the management and the company."
75. Id. at 156-157.

76. Id. at 23.

77. Id. at 45.

78. Id. at 254-255.

79. Id. at 261-263.

80. Id. at 45.

81. Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. v. Dalangin, Jr., 681 Phil. 21, 38 (2012) [Per J. Brion,
Second Division]; Bilbao v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, 678 Phil. 793, 805 [Per J. De Castro,
First Division]; Lopez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 358 Phil. 141, 153 (1998)
[Per J. Martinez, Second Division].

82. 497 Phil. 863 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].

83. Id. at 876-878, citing Fernandez v. NLRC, 349 Phil. 65, 94-95 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban,
Third Division].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com