BMG Records is engaged in the business of selling various audio records nationwide.

It hired Aida as one of its promo girls in its Cebu branch. After about eight years of employment with BMG, Aida, together with two other promo girls, tendered their resignations, which were accepted by the company.

Sun.Star accepts donations for victims of Typhoon Ondoy

After receiving her last salary, a proportion of the 13th month pay, and tax refund, Aida refused to sign the release and quitclaim because she protested the deductions from the financial assistance of the amount representing her shortages after inventory.

Thereafter, Aida filed a complaint against BMG for illegal dismissal.

In a nutshell, Aida submits that fraud, undue influence, intimidation, and/or mistake were attendant upon her resignation from BMG. As her consent was allegedly vitiated, the act of resigning became involuntary; hence, BMG is guilty of illegal dismissal.

BMG, however, proffers a different version of the facts. BMG narrates that Aida was initially performing well as an employee but as years passed by she seemed to be complacent in the performance of her job and had been comparing the salaries of promo girls in other companies. It appeared that she was no longer interested in her job.

In April 1998, Aida and two other promo girls, Jovelina V. Soco and Veronica P. Mutya, intimated to their supervisor that they were intending to resign and were requesting for some financial assistance.

BMG made it clear that, as a company policy, an employee who resigns from service is not entitled to financial assistance, but considering the length of their service and due to humanitarian consideration it would accede to the request after they secure their respective clearances.

Forthwith, the three employees tendered their resignations, which were accepted. When they processed the required individual clearance, it was found out that they had incurred some shortages after inventory. Per agreement, said shortages were deducted from the amounts due them.

Thus, Soco and Mutya received their last salary, a proportion of the 13th month pay, tax refund and financial assistance less the deductions, and they executed their releases and quitclaims.

Except for the financial assistance, Aida also obtained the same yet refused to sign the release and quitclaim, protesting the amount of P9,170.12 deducted from the financial assistance. She was adamant but BMG stood by the previous agreement.

The Supreme Court held that the circumstances surrounding Aida's resignation should be given due weight in determining whether she had intended to resign. In this case, such intent is very evident:

First, Aida already communicated to other people that she was about to resign to look for a better paying job since she had been complaining that employees like her in other companies were earning much more;

Second, prior to the submission of her resignation letter, Aida and two other promo girls, Soco and Mutya, approached their supervisor, intimated their desire to resign, and requested that they be given financial assistance, which BMG granted on the condition that deductions would be made in case of shortage after inventory;

Third, Aida, Soco, and Mutya submitted their duly signed resignation letters, which were accepted by BMG; and

Fourth, Aida already initiated the processing of her clearance; thus, she was able to receive her last salary, 13th month pay, and tax refund but refused to receive the financial assistance less the deductions made.

The foregoing facts were affirmatively narrated and attested to in the notarized affidavit of Soco and Cinco and have remained incontrovertible as they were never denied by Aida.

The acceptance by BMG of Aida's resignation rendered the same effective. Upon such acceptance, it may not be unilaterally withdrawn without the consent of petitioners. When the employee later signified the intention of continuing his or her work, it was already up to the employer to accept the withdrawal of his or her resignation. The mere fact that the withdrawal was not accepted does not constitute illegal dismissal, the acceptance of the withdrawal of the resignation being the employer's sole prerogative. As held in Intertrod Maritime Inc. v. NLRC (198 SCRA 318 [1991]):

Once an employee resigns and his resignation is accepted, he no longer has any right to the job. If the employee later changes his mind, he must ask for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation from his employer, as if he were re-applying for the job. It will then be up to the employer to determine whether or not his service would be continued. If the employer accepts said withdrawal, the employee retains his job. If the employer does not x x x the employee cannot claim illegal dismissal for the employer has the right to determine who his employees will be. To say that an employee who has resigned is illegally dismissed, is to encroach upon the right of employers to hire persons who will be of service to them. (BMG Records Phils.) Inc. vs. Aparecio, 552 SCRA 300 [2007].)