After reading, Effects Of Voluntary Resignation From Employment, read also Dismissal of a Dishonest Employee
-
Resignation is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office
-
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
-
There can be no constructive dismissal when there is voluntary resignation
In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it states that 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 lie or she, in fact, intended to sever his or her employment.
In the case of Panasonic Manufacturing Philippines Corporation vs. John Peckson (G.R. No. 206316, March 20, 2019), the issue of voluntary resignation was discussed.
In this case, Peckson was formerly employed as Sales Supervisor for the Battery Department of Panasonic Manufacturing Philippines Corporation (Panasonic). The issue in this case started when, in a letter dated September 16, 2003, Peckson expressed his intention to resign effective on October 30, 2003. In a subsequent letter dated September 25, 2003, Peckson informed Panasonic that he wished to change the effectivity of his resignation instead to October 15, 2003.
On April 11, 2005, Peckson filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with claims for payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement with full backwages, non-payment of 13th month pay and other benefits, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against Panasonic and Jose De Jesus (De Jesus) in the latter’s personal capacity as Manager of Peckson’s former Battery Sales Department. In the complaint, Peckson alleged that he was forced to resign by De Jesus after the latter accused him of falsifying De Jesus’ signature in an “Authority to Travel” form dated August 20, 2003.
Was the resignation of Peckson voluntary?
The Supreme Court said:
Yes. As a result, Panasonic is not guilty of constructive dismissal which is defined as quitting or cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits.
While the rights of the workers, as with all human rights, must be protected, the law does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The constitutional commitment to the policy of social justice cannot be understood to mean that every labor dispute shall automatically be decided in favor of labor, especially when the antecedent facts indicate the lack of malfeasance on the part of the management.
In this case, Peckson was not able to overcome his burden to prove that his resignation was involuntary. As result Peckson’s complaint for constructive dismissal with claims for payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement with full backwages, non-payment of 13th month pay and other benefits, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees was dismissed.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]