G.R. No.

100322 March 9, 1994 In September, 1986, Almoradie was transferred to Guatson Travel, allegedly
also a sister company of MEREX and Philac, as Liaison Officer with a salary of
GUATSON INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC., PHILIPPINE
P1,864.00. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Sales
INTEGRATED LABOR ASSISTANCE CORPORATION, MERCURY EXPRESS
Representative sometime in April, 1988. On April 30, 1988, Almoradie was
INTERNATIONAL COURIER SERVICES, INC., petitioners,
issued three separate memoranda as follows:
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JOLLY IOM/88-70
ALMORADIE, respondents.
Please explain in writing within 24 hrs. or not later than Monday morning the
Generosa R. Jacinto for petitioners. reason why you don't want to sell.1

Donato H. De Castro and Rolando P. Rotairo for private respondent. IOM/88-71

Please explain in writing why did you went (sic) to BEMIL and who sent you
there.2
NOCON, J.:
IOM-88
Petitioners Guatson Travel and Tours, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Guatson
Travel), Philippine Integrated Labor Assistance Corp. (Philac) and Mercury Explain in writing not later than Monday the following:
Express International Courier Services, Inc. (MEREX) assail the Decision,
1. The reason why you want to be a messenger and no more a sales
rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission in Case No. NLRC-NCR-
representative;
00-11-0451-88 entitled "Jolly M. Almoradie v. Guatson's Travel Company,
Philac and MEREX," dated March 21, 1991 and its Resolution, dated May 31, 2. That I'm always confronting (sic) you, as what you've told me personally;
1991, denying the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
3. Why you will not answer in writing the memo issued to you by Lou Cantara
In the questioned decision, the NLRC found that Mr. Henry Ocier's (Vice- on 30 Apr;
President and General Manager of petitioner Guatson Travel) actuation of
threatening and forcing private respondent, Jolly M. Almoradie, to resign x x x           x x x          x x x
amounted to illegal dismissal and thus ordered petitioners to pay private 5. Why when you were asked last Friday to join the Sales Blitz to Sta. Ana you
respondent backwages, computed from the date of his dismissal on November said yes and you change (sic) your mind when you were asked again last
1988, until the decision was rendered on February 28, 1991 or the amount of Saturday;
P50,328.00; and to pay separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month for
every year of service, for seven (7) years or the amount of P6,524.00. x x x           x x x          x x x

From the records it appears that Jolly M. Almoradie was first employed by 7. Why you have forgotten the situation wherein you refuse (sic) to sell a
Mercury Express International Courier Service, Inc. (MEREX) in October, 1983 certain product recommended by Myrna;
as Messenger receiving a monthly salary of P800.00. When it closed its 8. The meaning of "You pirated me from Philac . . . 3
operations, Almoradie was absorbed by MEREX's sister company Philippine
Integrated Labor Assistance Corp. (Philac), likewise as Messenger with an Within the time frame specified, Almoradie responded to each of the charges,
increased salary of P1,200.00. the essence of which are as follows:
1. It is not true that I do not want to sale (sic) the rates & package tour of Our Henry Ocier summoned me to his office and had a very lengthy confrontation
Company as imputed and charge (sic), because since April, 1988 (sic) when I of me (sic), and when I go out (sic) after the confrontation to join the sales
was transferred from Accounting to sales department of our Company I was blitz-krieg to Sta. Ana last Saturday, April 30, 1988, Mr. Oscar Vanderlipe who
able to sale (sic) almost 110 dollars to 21 passengers. The truth however is heads the sales Group (sic) were (sic) already gone.
that, I am hampered in my sales promotion and solicitation of customer, due
xxx xxx xxx
to financial constraint considering that the kind and nature of work entails
much expenses for which I shouldered (sic) with my personal money. As a 3.7. I deny vehemently that I refuse to sale (sic) a certain product
matter of fact I have brought this matter to the Vice President and General recommended by Myrna de Vera because the same is totally false. Since April
Manager if only an appropriation be set aside for the expenses in going 1, 1988 when I was transferred to the sales department of our company where
around, meeting people and soliciting prospective clients. from the very beginning I was briefed and taught and learned about the nature
of my job and the product to sale (sic) by Myrna (sic) de Vera herself, I have
2. Bemil is a customer of our company. With respect to the ticketing and
ever since until now ventured and performed the selling of rates and package
booking of Bemil passengers, undertaking (sic) by the sales department of our
tour which are every products (sic) for sales department of our company. If
company, I used to go Bemil (sic) to inquire whether they have passengers for
sometimes I make no sales, which all sales representative suffer and are beset
booking and ticketing. As a matter of fact, I went to Bemil to pick-up their
such (sic), however, cannot be considered as refusal to sale (sic). The only
ticketing and booking for their passengers last Monday, April 29, 1988 (sic) and
product of our Company that Myrna briefed, taught and required as to (sic)
then returned the following day, Saturday April 30, 1988, to deliver the ticket.
our rates and Package Tours which I've been selling since April 1, 1988 up to
xxx xxx xxx present. (sic)

3.1. Considering that the job of sales representative entails so much expense xxx xxx xxx4
in the performance thereof (sic), as I have stated in my number one (1)
On May 4, 1988, Almoradie was reverted to the position of Messenger, yet
explanation and I have to use my own personal money to promote and solicit
sometime in September, 1988, he was again given the position of Account
customer without any funding of our company (sic), I have taught (sic) it better
Executive, the nature of work of which is similar to that of a sales
that I like my position as messenger, that (sic) as sales representative,
representative. Almoradie accepted the transfer with the understanding that
although the later (sic) position is more dignified, hence I prefer to be entered
he will solely discharge the duties of an account executive and will no longer
to my messenger position.
be required to do messengerial work.
3.2. That I admit of the often confrontation conducted (sic) by Vice
In the morning of October 1, 1988, Almoradie was allegedly summoned by
President/General Manager, even in the absence of my error or fault (sic) . . .
Henry Ocier to his office and was there and then forced by the latter to resign.
3.3. It is not true that I did not or fail to answer the memo issued by Lou Ocier taunted Almoradie with threats that it he will not resign, he will file
Cantara, since I was given until May 2, 1988 to answer the same . . . charges against him which would adversely affect his chances of getting
employed in the future. Ocier allegedly even provided the pen and paper on
xxx xxx xxx
which Almoradie wrote and signed the resignation letter dictated by Ocier
3.5. As scheduled, I said yes to the sales blitz to Sta. Ana, because in truth I am himself.5
very interested in such sales business attack since it is in connection with my
On that same day, Almoradie sought the help of a friend, Isagani Mallari, who
function as a sales representative that will surely enhance and sharpen my
advised him to report the matter to the Barangay Captain. 6 Subsequently,
sales acumen, but if I was not able to join it is not the reason my change of
mind (sic), but because the Vice-President/General Manager of Our Company,
Almoradie filed a complaint for illegal Dismissal on November 14, 1988. The It appears that as early as April, 1988, when Almoradie was promoted as Sales
Labor Arbiter, however dismissed his case based on the following conclusions: Representative he had caught the ire of management, so much so that he was
issued no less than three memoranda on one day ordering him to answer
In examining the facts and the arguments, it is difficult to abide by the
certain charges. Why he was again promoted to the position of Account
impression that complainant was forced to resign. Apart from the averment of
Executive after he was reverted back to the rank of a messenger from being a
respondent Guatson that Mr. Ocier was out of town when the resignation
Sales Representative is rather intriguing, unless it was a scheme of
letter was executed that he just saw the resignation letter when he
management to really rid him from the company. Apparently, Almoradie is not
arrived.7 There is reason to believe that complainant apparently defied the
cut out for a sales job, and hence could be dismissed or forced to resign for
order for his transfer or designation as account executive earlier before he
failing to make good on his job on sales. On the other hand, it would be
executed his resignation letter.
difficult to dismiss him while being a messenger since he is a permanent
It must be concluded that his designation as account executive is a employee and there would not be enough basis to make him resign.
management prerogative which under the circumstance is untainted with any
We do not agree with petitioners' proposition that Mr. Ocier's mere utterances
unfair labor practice. Apparently, complainant resented his resignation
of the words "I will file charges against you," and "I have a very good lawyer,"
without any plausible or cogent reason as he had earlier resented to be a sales
do not constitute force or coercion as to vitiate the free will of Almoradie in
representative for which he was made to explain the reasons why. The only
writing his resignation letter.
graceful exit to the complainant was to execute his letter of resignation. As his
letter of resignation shows, it was executed in his own handwriting Intimidation may vitiate consent when the following requisites are present: (1)
spontaneously out of his own free will. 8 that the intimidation caused the consent to be given; 2) that the threatened
act be unjust or unlawful; 3) that the threat be real or serious, there being
Upon Almoradie's appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter
evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all man can
on his finding that complainant was not forced to resign, anchoring its
offer, leading to the choice of doing that act which is forced on the person to
conclusion to the fact that Almoradie was a permanent employee who has
do as the lesser evil; and 4) that it produces a well-grounded fear from the fact
been working for the Ocier's for five long years; that he was receiving a fairly
that the person from whom it comes has the necessary means or ability to
good salary considering that he is single; that he had no potential employer at
inflict the threatened injury to his person or property. 9
the time of his resignation; that there was no evidence to show that Mr. Henry
Ocier was indeed not in town on October 1, 1988, when he allegedly forced The moment that a person by whom respect and reverence are due should
Almoradie to resign; and his reaction immediately after his forced resignation wrongly exert pressure upon his subordinates, amounting to intimidation in
by seeking the assistance of a friend who was placed in a similar situation the manner stated in the Lichauco de Leon case, supra, in order to exact from
before and in reporting the incident to the Barangay Chairman to seek redress. said subordinates an act against their will, the same is enough to vitiate
consent.
The issue therefore, boils down to the question of whether Jolly Almoradie
was indeed illegally dismissed by being forced to resign in the manner Henry Ocier did not only say that he will file charges against Almoradie and
narrated by him. that he has a good lawyer but he even threatened to block his future
employment should the latter not file his resignation. This threat is not
From a synthesis of the evidence on record, we fully agree with the finding of
farfetched. Almoradie is not even a college graduate. 10 With his limited skills
the NLRC that Jolly Almoradie's resignation was NOT voluntary. The NLRC did
and the scarcity of employment opportunities it would really be difficult for
not err in disregarding the conclusions reached by the Labor Arbiter because
him to find a job. Considering further the influence of Mr. Henry Ocier and his
the latter's findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
capacity to make good his threat by refusing to give a favorable
recommendation on Almoradie's performance, the latter is helpless in not pay, the three (3) year period wherein backwages are awarded, must be
complying with the former's demand for his resignation. included. 15

Anent NLRC's grant of separation pay and backwages to private respondent WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC is hereby MODIFIED to the extent that
Jolly M. Almoradie, petitioners argues that the companies, Guatson Travel the award of backwages should be computed based on a three-year period,
Company, Philac Merex have separate and distinct legal personalities such that while the separation pay of one month for every year of service should be
the latter companies should not be held liable; assuming, for the sake of computed from the time petitioner was employed by Merex and should
argument that private respondent was illegally dismissed. include the three-year period as backwages. The petition is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
We uphold the NLRC. The three companies are owned by one family, such that
majority of the officers of the companies are the same. The companies are SO ORDERED.
located in one building and use the same messengerial service. Moreover,
there was no showing that private respondent was paid separation pay when
he was absorbed by Philac upon closure of Merex; nor was there evidence that
he resigned from Philac when he transferred to Guatson Travel. Under the
doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, when valid ground exists, the
legal fiction that a corporation is an entity with a juridical personality separate
and distinct from its members or stockholders may be disregarded. We have
applied this doctrine in the case of "Philippine Scout Veterans Security and
Investigation Agency (PSVSIA), et al. v. The Hon. Secretary of Labor," G.R. No.
92357, July 21, 1993.

Where there is a finding of illegal dismissal, the employee is entitled to both

reinstatement and award of backwages from the time the compensation was
withheld, in this case in 1988, up to a maximum of three years, applying the
Mercury Drug Rule. 11

Reinstatement, however, will not be required not only for the reason that it
was not prayed for by the respondent, but also because the relationship
between Almoradie and Ocier had become strained as to preclude a
harmonious working relationship. In lieu of reinstatement, separation pay is
awarded. 12 As the term suggests, separation pay is the amount that an
employee receives at the time of his severance from the service and is
designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that
he is looking for another employment. 13

However the award of separation pay should be, as we have consistently

ruled, equivalent to one (1) month for every year of service, 14 instead of one-
half (1/2) month as awarded by the NLRC. In the computation of separation