Dear PAO,

My father was a jeepney driver. Last Monday, he had a misunderstanding with the operator because the latter increased the boundary to be paid daily. My father refused to pay the increased boundary. The operator allegedly said that if my father does not want to obey, he may freely leave the premises. On that same day, my father surrendered the key and the jeepney to the operator and immediately left. I inquired with the operator about the matter and he said that my father had already resigned; hence, there is no point in discussing the issue. I told him that he cannot just increase the boundary without the consent of my father and the latter was considered as illegally dismissed. Please enlighten me.

Armando

Dear Armando,

Increasing the boundary to be paid by the driver is a management prerogative. In the case of Peckson vs. Robinsons Supermarket Corp., et al. (G.R. 198534, July 3, 2013, Ponente: former associate justice Bienvenido Reyes), the Supreme Court explained management prerogative in this wise:

'Under the doctrine of management prerogative, every employer has the inherent right to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. The only limitations to the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and substantial justice.'

The actions of your father may be equated to resignation. This is in consonance with the decision of the court in the case of Ringo B. Dayowan Transport Services or Ringo B. Dayowan vs. Guarino Jr. (G.R. 226409, Nov. 10, 2020), where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang, stated that:

'It is also of no contention that the imposed increase in boundary rate is Ringo's exercise of management prerogative. Records fail to show any reason why Dionito should not abide by this employer's right to control and manage his enterprise effectively, especially when it is reasonable and exercised in good faith.

By returning the jeepney and its keys, coupled with his nonpayment of the adjusted boundary rate, Dionito has opted to leave rather than stay employed where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed for the favor of employment. Indeed, Dionito has resigned from employment. Resignation - the formal renunciation or relinquishment of a position or office - is the voluntary act of an employee compelled by personal reason(s) to dissociate himself from employment. Like in this case of Dionito, resignation was done with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act of manifesting this intent.'

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, the consent of your father is not necessary in increasing the boundary of drivers considering that the same is a valid exercise of management prerogative. Your father may be considered to have resigned when he surrendered the key and the jeepney to the operator coupled by his refusal to pay the increased boundary. Resignation is the relinquishment of a position where the employee believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed for the favor of employment. This can be done through resignation letters or relinquishment of office accompanied by the act of manifesting intent. Thus, your father's action is tantamount to relinquishment of office.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor's note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney's Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net