ARGUMENTS

TITLE: RESIGNATION

In Mora vs. Avesco Marketing Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled

that should an employer interpose the defense of resignation, as in the
present case, it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the
employee voluntarily resigned. From the totality of evidence on record, it
was clearly demonstrated that respondent has sufficiently discharged its
burden to prove that complainants resignations were voluntary. In
voluntary resignation, the employee is compelled by personal reason(s) to
disassociate himself from employment. It is done with the intention of
relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment. To
determine whether the employee before and after the alleged resignation
must be considered.

In the case at bar, there was an intent to relinquish the position as

shown by the: a.) resignation letters; b) the execution of the quitclaims;
and c) the receipt of the terminal pay. The intent was accompanied by an
overt of relinquishment not reporting for work effective for an
unreasonable period of time. In addition, nothing has been heard of from
complainants until the filing of the instant complaint. Further,
complainant expressed her gratitude for the opportunity to have worked
for respondents. She even went as far as hoping that the resignation be
approved. Clearly, the use of words of appreciation and gratitude negates
the notion that she was force to resign.

In addition, having executed the resignation letters, it is incumbent

upon complainants to prove that the resignations were not voluntary but
were actually cases of constructive dismissals. Proof to this effect must
be clear, positive and convincing. Mere allegation of threat or force does
not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding or forced
resignation. In St. Michael Academy vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court
enumerated the requisites for intimidation to vitiate consent as follows: a)
that the intimidation caused the consent to be given;) b) that the
threatened act be unjust or unlawful; c) 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 d) 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. Complainants have failed in their onus on these
matters.