Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Tag: resignation

  • Circumstances Revealed Voluntary Resignations

    Hazel was engaged by University of Saint Anthony as a credit and collection officer. Arlene was engaged as its accounting clerk. Jean was its classroom teacher. And Nancy was its accounting officer.

    With regard to Hazel, University of Saint Anthony noticed several irregular and anomalous transactions its University’s Accounting Office by way of a cash shortage of more than One Million Pesos representing the net collection of book remittances. Another audit report revealed anomalous transactions in prior years where tellers accommodated encashments of checks not in the name of University of Saint Anthony. Hazel went on leave during the audit, but later tendered her resignation. Record showed that University of Saint Anthony filed a criminal case and an information was filed before the Regional Trial Court.

    At around the same period, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy were found to have taken advantage of their positions in the Accounting Office by enrolling their children and relatives under the University’s group enrollment incentive program despite knowing that they were unqualified. Upon discovery of the fraudulent scheme, University of Saint Anthony immediately ordered an investigation and called a conference with Arlene, Jean and Nancy. During a conference, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy admitted that their children and relatives indeed benefitted from the unauthorized discounts. They were informed that their employment will be terminated on grounds of dishonesty amounting to malversation of school funds. Thereafter, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy tendered their resignation on December 22, 2007 (taking effect on January 2, 2008). Subsequently, University of Saint Anthony filed criminal cases Arlene, Jean, and Nancy.

    Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy soon filed their respective complaints for illegal dismissal against University of Saint Anthony.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter declared their dismissal illegal and granted them the reliefs of reinstatement and backwages. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter because it found that the Hazel, Arlene, Jean and Nancy voluntarily resigned and opted for a voluntary exit before the effectivity of their supposed termination from employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.

    An issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether the resignations of Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy rendered their complaints for illegal dismissal without basis.

    The Supreme Court ruled that Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy voluntarily resigned from employment.

    Jurisprudence teaches that resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or office. It is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and he has then no other choice but to disassociate himself from employment. The intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment; hence, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he in fact intended to terminate his employment. In illegal dismissal cases, it is a fundamental rule that when an employer interposes the defense of resignation, on him necessarily rests the burden to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned. For resignation from employment to be valid, there must be an intent to relinquish the position together with the overt act of relinquishment. Resignation must be voluntary. In illegal dismissal cases, the employer, if defense of resignation is presented, must show that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned.

    In the present case, the Court ruled that the fact of resignation by Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy was undisputed. It found that Hazel tendered her resignation on July 27, 2007, while Arlene, Jean, and Nancy tendered their resignation on December 22, 2007. Said resignations were found to have been approved by University of Saint Anthony.

    According to the Court, University of Saint Anthony correctly argued that Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy had voluntarily tendered their resignation before filing their complaints for illegal dismissal. The Court noted that ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission that this event rendered their complaints for illegal dismissal without basis as the employment relationship was severed before the effectivity date of its termination. The Court also noted that notwithstanding such ruling, Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy, no longer contested the same but insisted that there they were illegally dismissed.

    The Court considered the totality of circumstances, and ruled that University of Saint Anthony showed that Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy voluntarily resigned prior to the effectivity date of the termination of their employment. It was found that ongoing investigations were conducted relative to the irregular acts imputed to Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy thereby placing them in a difficult position. Although the Court acknowledged that wordings in resignations letters are not the sole test of voluntariness, the wording of the resignation letters of Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy, together with other circumstances found by the Court, showed the voluntariness of their resignations. The Court also emphasized that Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy neither contended nor presented countervailing evidence that their resignation was involuntary. The Court added the settled rule that there is nothing reprehensible or illegal when the employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save face rather than smear the latter’s employment record.

    In view of the voluntary resignations of Hazel, Arlene, Jean, and Nancy prior to the termination of their employment, the Court concluded that their complaints for illegal dismissal had no basis.

    Further reading:

    • Bance v. University of St. Anthony, G.R. No. 202724, February 3, 2021.

  • But She Went Home for Personal Reasons

    On 7 November 2010, Hazel entered into a 2-year employment contract with Kuwait by Al-Masiya, through its agent, Saad Mutlaq Al Asmi Domestic Staff Recruitment Office (Saad Mutlaq)/Al Dakhan Manpower where she to work as a domestic helper with a monthly salary of US$400.00.

    Hazel arrived in Kuwait on 8 November 2010. Due to disagreement in the working conditions, Hazel’s employment with her first and second employers did not succeed. Her employment with her third employer also did not succeed as the latter could not obtain a working visa for her.

    On 16 December 2010, Hazel went to the Philippine Embassy where she related her employment problems to a Labor Attaché in Kuwait who offered to help them.

    On 5 January 2011, Hazel left the Philippine Embassy after a certain Mr. Mutlaq offered to give her a job at a chocolate factory. However, this chocolate factory turned out to be inexistent.

    Then, the employees of Al Rekabi, an employment agency, told her that they would be bringing her to Hawally at night. She refused to take the trip as it was cold and drizzling. She then attempted to report the matter to the Labor Attaché using her cellular phone, but the employees of Al Rekabi confiscated it. Mr. Hassan, the Manager of Al Rekabi, did not accede to her request to postpone the trip to the following day. It came to a point where Mr. Hassan scolded Hazel and forced her to make a written admission that her employers treated her well.

    Sometime after 6 January 2011, Hazel was brought to the office of Al Rekabi at Salmiya. On an unspecified date thereafter, at around 7:00 p.m., two men offered her a job at a restaurant in front of the main office of the agency. She accepted the offer. However, instead of being brought to a restaurant in Hawally, where she was supposed to work, Hazel was taken to a flat where she was told to apply makeup and wear attractive and sexy clothes. Another man joined them. Hazel was then told that she would be brought to her place of work. However, she was instead taken to an unlighted area which had buildings but no restaurant or coffee shop signboards. At the area, she saw another man walking. After recognizing that the man was an employee of Al Rekabi, she asked him to bring her to the main office of the agency. She was able to leave at around 11:00 p.m. when the three other men agreed to release her.

    On 7 February 2011, Hazel was asked to affix her signature on a letter that she copied purportedly showing that she admitted having preterminated her contract of employment and that she no longer had any demandable claim as she was treated well. Hazel’s execution of this letter of resignation was made as a precondition to the release of her passport and plane ticket which were in the possession of petitioners.

    Hazel arrived in the Philippines on 12 February 2011 and thereafter filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against her employer.

    In response to Hazel’s complaint, the employers filed a motion to dismiss on 11 May 2011, alleging that on 7 February 2011, Hazel executed an Affidavit of Quitclaim and Desistance, Sworn Statement, and Receipt and Quitclaim before the Assistant Labor Attaché in Kuwait, where she allegedly stated that she voluntarily agreed to release her employers from all her claims arising from her employment abroad. They also presented her handwritten statement where she expressed that her cause for terminating her employment was her own personal reasons.

    Was Hazel constructively dismissed from employment?

    The Supreme Court stated that in cases of constructive dismissal, the impossibility, unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of continued employment leaves an employee with no other viable recourse but to terminate his or her employment. “An employee is considered to be constructively dismissed from service if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbea[r]able to the employee as to leave him or her with no option but to forego his or her continued employment.” From this definition, it can be inferred that various situations, whereby the employer intentionally places the employee in a situation which will result in the latter’s being coerced into severing his ties with the former, can result in constructive dismissal.1Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229881, September 5, 2018 and Agcolicol, Jr. v. Casiño, G.R. No. 217732, June 15, 2016.

    The Court found that the circumstances of the present case strongly indicated that Hazel was constructively dismissed.

    First, Hazel’s foreign employer never secured a working visa for her, in violation of the categorical requirement for an employer’s accreditation with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency.

    Second, Hazel was not properly paid in accordance with the terms of her employment contract. During her 3-month stay, she was only paid US$227.75 instead of the stipulated pay of US$400 per month.

    Third, Hazel was not assigned to a permanent employer abroad for the entire contractual period of 2 years. Upon her arrival in Kuwait, she was consistently promised job placements which were found to be inexistent. The Court found it clear that the foreign employer intended to use Hazel as an entertainer of some sort in places of ill repute; and she would have fallen victim to human trafficking “[w]ere it not for some favorable providence.”

    Finally, Hazel was made to copy and sign a prepared resignation letter and this was made as a condition for the release of her passport and plane ticket.

    For the Court, it was logical for Hazel to consider herself constructively dismissed. since the impossibility, unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of continued employment has left her with no other viable recourse but to terminate her employment. The Court further stated:

    Our overseas workers belong to a disadvantaged class. Most of them come from the poorest sector of our society. Their profile shows they live in suffocating slums, trapped in an environment of crimes. Hardly literate and in ill health, their only hope lies in jobs they find with difficulty in our country. Their unfortunate circumstance makes them easy prey to avaricious employers. They will climb mountains, cross the seas, endure slave treatment in foreign lands just to survive. Out of despondence, they will work under sub-human conditions and accept salaries below the minimum. The least we can do is to protect them with our laws.

    On that note, the Court reminds petitioners to observe common decency and good faith in their dealings with their unsuspecting employees, particularly in undertakings that ultimately lead to waiver of workers’ rights. The Court will not renege on its duty to protect the weak against the strong, and the gullible against the wicked, be it for labor or for capital. The Court scorns petitioners’ reprehensible conduct. As employers, petitioners are bound to observe candor and fairness in their relations with their hapless employees.

    Further reading:

    • Al-Masiya Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Viernes, G.R. No. 216132, January 22, 2020.

  • Proving Involuntary Resignations

    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.