DOBLE, JR. v ABB INC.

LUIS S. DOBLE, JR. vs. ABB INC/NITIN DESAL

G.R. No. 215627 

June 5, 2017 

FACTS 

Petitioner Luis s. Doble, Jr., a duly licensed engineer, was hired by respondent ABB Inc. as Junior Design Engineer on March 29, 1993. During almost 19 years of his employment with the respondent, prior to his disputed termination, Doble rose through the ranks and was promoted up to Vice President and Local Division Manager of Power System Division on March 2010. As a matter of policy, ABB Inc. conducts the yearly Performance and Development Appraisal of all its employees. In all years prior to 2008, Doble was rated with grades 3 or 4, which are equivalent to Strong Performance or Superior Results. 

On March 2, 2012, Doble was called by respondent Country Manager and President Nitin Desai, and was informed that his performance rating for 2011 was 1, which is equivalent to unsatisfactory performance. On March 13, 2012, at about 10:45 AM, a company Executive Assistant informed Doble that he has a meeting with ABB Inc. President Desai and Country Human Resource (HR) Manager Marivic Miranda at 11:45 AM in the Luzon Conference Room of ABB Inc. During the meeting, ABB Inc. Presdent Desai explained to Doble that the Global and Regional Management have demanded for a change in leadership due to the extent of losses and level of discontent among the ranks of the PS Division. Desai then raised the option for Doble to resign. 

Thereafter, HR manager Miranda told Doble that he would be paid separation pay equivalent to 75% of his monthly salary for every year of service, provided he would submit a letter of resignation, and gave him until 12:45 PM within which to decide. Shocked by the abrupt decision of the management, Doble asked why he should be the one made to resign. Miranda said that it was the decision of the management and left him alone in the conference room to decide whether or not to resign. At this juncture, the parties gave contrasting accounts on the ensuing events which led to the termination of Doble’s employment. 

On March 26, 2012, Doble filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, other monetary claims and damages. In a decision dated November 29, 2012, the labor Arbiter held that Doble was illegally dismissed because his resignation was involuntary, and ordered ABB Inc. to pay his backwages and separation pay, since reinstatement is no longer feasible. Aggrieved by the decision of the Labor arbiter, ABB Inc. and Desai filed an appeal, whereas Doble filed a partial appeal from the dismissal of his monetary claims. 

In a decision dated June 26, 2013, the two commissioners of the NLRC 6th division voted to grant the appeal filed by ABB Inc. and Desai, and to dismiss the partial appeal of Doble. They found that the resignation of Doble being voluntary, there can be no illegal dismissal and no basis for the award of other monetary claims, damages and attorney’s fees. 

However, one NLRC Commissioner dissented. Doble filed for motion for reconsideration but was denied. Dissatisfied with the NLRC decision and resolution, Doble filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA. The CA dismissed outright the petition for Certiorari because “the assailed NLRC Decision and Resolution attached are mere certified photocopies and not duplicate originals or certified true copies”, and petitioner’s counsel’s MCLE Compliance NO. III-0006542 does not appear to have complied with the 4th MCLE compliance period. Disgruntled with the Resolutions of the CA, Doble filed this petition for review on certiorari. 

ISSUES 

1. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the assailed NLRC decision and Resolution attached thereto are mere photocopies and not duplicate originals or true copies. 

2. Whether or not the CA erred in denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration which dismissed the petition for Certiorari on the ground that petitioner’s counsel had conceded his inability to comply with the MCLE requirement. 

3. Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion for dismissing petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent. 

HELD 

The petition is partly impressed with merit on procedural grounds, but still devoid of substantive merit. On procedural aspect, the court rules that the CA gravely erred when it dismissed outright the Petition for Certiorari and refused to reinstate the same, despite the fact that the two defects noted in the minute Resolution have already been substantially rectified. 

First, the CA gravely erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the assailed NLRC Decision and Resolution attached thereto are mere “certified photocopies” and not duplicate originals or certified true copies. The CA’s inordinate nitpicking on procedural requirements is contrary to the ruling in COCA Cola Bottlers Phils Inc v. Cabalo: The problem presented is not novel. In fact, it is a fairly recurrent one in petitions for certiorari of NLRC decisions as it seems to be the practice of the NLRC to issue certified “Xerox copies’ only instead of certified “True copies”. We have, however, put an end to this issue in Quintano v. NLRC when we declared that there is no substantial distinction between a photocopy or a “xerox copier” and a “true copy” for as long as the photocopy is certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his duly authorized representative and that the same is a faithful reproduction of the original. In this case, a perusal of the attached NLRC Decision and Resolution shows that they are indeed certified photocopies of the said decision and resolution. Each page has been certified by the NLRC 6th Division’s Deputy Clerk of Court who is undisputedly the proper officer to make such certification. Moreover, the attached copies appear to be faithful reproductions thereof. Thus, there is substantial compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that any petition filed under Rule 65 should be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof. 

Second, the CA also gravely erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground that petitioner’s counsel had conceded his inability to comply with the MCLE requirement. On point is People v. Arrojado where it was held that the failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result in the dismissal of the case. Granted that the petition for Certiorari was filed before the CA on October 29, 2013 even before the effectivity of En Banc Resolution dated January 14, 2014 which amended B.M. No. 1922, it bears to stress that petitioner’s counsel later submitted Receipts of Attendance in the MCLE Lecture Series for his MCLE Compliance IV on March 3, 2014 and the Certificate of Compliance albeit on January 26, 2015. Hence the CA erred in issuing the November 28, 2014 Resolution denying Doble’s motion for reconsideration, there being no more reason not to reinstate the petition for certiorari based on procedural defects which have already been corrected. 

The Court agrees with the NLRC that ABB Inc. and Desai were able to prove by substantial evidence that Doble voluntarily resigned, as shown by the following documents (1) the affidavit of ABB Inc.’s HR Manager Miranda; (2) the resignation letter; (3) the Employee Clearance Sheet; (4) the Certificate of Employment; (5) photocopy of BPI’s manager’s check representing the separation benefit; (6) Employee Final Pay Computation showing in the payment of leave credits, rice subsidy and bonuses; and, (7) the Receipt, Release and Quitclaim. 

On the other hand, the Court disagrees with the findings of the Labor Arbiter that Doble’s resignation was not voluntary. Even if the option to resign originated from the employer, what is important for resignation to be deemed voluntary is that the employee’s intent to relinquish must concur with overt act of relinquishment. There can be no doubt as to the drastic and shocking nature of the abrupt decision of ABB Inc. to let Doble resign after almost 19 years of dedicated and satisfactory service, on account of the extent of losses, the level of discontent among the ranks of PS Division, and the ABB Inc. Global and Regional management’s demand for a change in leadership. 

It bears emphasis, however, that between the start of the conference at around 11 AM and about 8 hours later in the evening when he left the company premises, Doble negotiated for a higher separation pay. In fact, Doble tendered a resignation letter only after being offered a better separation benefit of 1 month pay for every year of service, and even submitted a separate letter expressing his intent to buy his service vehicle. After considering the acts of Doble before and after his resignation, the Court is convinced of Doble’s clear intention to sever his employment with ABB Inc. Finally, since the Decision of the NLRC finding Doble to have voluntarily resigned is supported by substantial evidence and in accord with law and prevailing jurisprudence, no grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction may be imputed against the NLRC for having dismissed his complaint for illegal dismissal against ABB Inc. and Desai. 

The petition for Review on Certiorari is partly granted for being impressed with merit on the procedural issues and partly denied for lacking merit on the substantial issues. The assailed resolution of the CA are reversed and set aside, while the Decision and Resolution of the NLRC are affirmed. 

JLD