Proving Involuntary Resignations

2016 January 11

It is incumbent upon an employee to prove that his or her resignation is not voluntary.

The overseas Filipino worker in this case maintained that she was threatened and coerced by her employer to write the resignation letter, to accept the financial assistance and to sign the waiver and settlement. She insisted that her act of resigning was involuntary and thus concluded that she has been illegally dismissed from employment.

Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether in fact, he or she intended to sever from his or her employment.

In this case, the Supreme Court was not convinced of complainant’s assertions, for it was unable to find proof supporting the same.

First, in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee’s dismissal was legal. However, to discharge this burden, the employee must first prove, by substantial evidence, that he had been dismissed from employment. Here, the Court found no competent evidence to prove that her employer used force and threat before she wrote the resignation letter.

For intimidation to vitiate consent, the following requisites must be present:

  • that the intimidation caused the consent to be given;
  • that the threatened act be unjust or unlawful;
  • that the threat be real or serious, there being evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men can offer, leading to the choice of doing the act which is forced on the person to do as the lesser evil; and
  • that it produces a well-grounded fear from the fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessary means or ability to inflict the threatened injury to his person or property.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the worker had failed to prove the existence of the essential requisites. Thus, it concluded that the worker’s bare allegations of threat or force did not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding of forced resignation.

And second, the following circumstances of the resignation led the Court to rule-out a finding of involuntariness:

  • The worker executed a resignation letter in her own handwriting;
  • She also accepted the amount of P35,000.00 as financial assistance and executed an Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and an Agreement, as settlement and waiver of any cause of action against her employer; and
  • The affidavit of waiver and the settlement were acknowledged/subscribed before a Philippine Labor Attache, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate. The Agreement likewise bears the signature of a conciliator-mediator.

The Court clarified that an affidavit of waiver duly acknowledged before a notary public is a public document which cannot be impugned by mere self-serving allegations. Proof of an irregularity in its execution is absolutely essential.

Furthermore, the signatures of these officials sufficiently proved that the worker was duly assisted when she signed the waiver and settlement. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The Court, however, remarked that no such evidence was presented.

A waiver or quitclaim is a valid and binding agreement between the parties, provided that it constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement, and that the one accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import.

Since there was no extant and clear proof of the alleged coercion and threats the worker allegedly received from her employer that, in turn, led her to terminate her employment relations with her employer, the Court concluded that the worker resigned voluntarily.

Further reading:

  • Iladan v. La Suerte International Manpower Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 203882, January 11, 2016.