Photo from Unsplash | Marten Bjork
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. (Article 285, par. a, Labor Code)
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, an employee may terminate without just cause the employer-employee relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance.
If the employer does not receive any notice from the employee regarding his resignation, the employer may hold such employee liable for damages.
The law says:
“An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.” (Article 285, par. a, Labor Code)
Resignation
Resignation is defined as a voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor or exigency if the service, and that he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. (Reynaldo Valdez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125028, February 9, 1998)
Resignation is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office. It must be made with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by an act of relinquishment. It must be made with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by an act of relinquishment. (Reynaldo Valdez v. NLRC, Id.)
To determine the voluntariness of an employee’s resignation, the Supreme Court held in the case of Jonald Torredo v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines (G.R. No. 229881, September 8, 2018) that:
“The intention to relinquish an office must concur with the overt act of relinquishment. The act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered to determine whether in fact, he or she intended to relinquish such employment. If the employer introduces evidence purportedly executed by an employee as proof of voluntary resignation and the employee specifically denies the authenticity and due execution of said document, the employer is burdened to prove the due execution and genuineness of such document.”
Constructive Dismissal
Constructive dismissal 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. It exists if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. (Panasonic Manufacturing Philippines Corporation v. John Peckson, G.R. No. 206316, March 20, 2019)
Constructive dismissal is said to be an involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. (Panasonic Manufacturing Philippines Corporation v. John Peckson, Id.)
By definition, constructive dismissal can happen in any number of ways. At its core, however, is the gratuitous, unjustified, or unwarranted nature of the employer’s action. As it is a question of whether an employer acted fairly, it is inexorable that any allegation of constructive dismissal be contrasted with the validity of exercising management prerogative. (Jonald Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines, Id.)
Resignation vis-à-vis Constructive Dismissal
In the case of Gan v. Galderrama (G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013), the Supreme Court distinguished constructive dismissal from resignation.
Jurisprudence says:
“To begin with, constructive dismissal 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. It exists if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. There is involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances.
On the other hand, “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 he or she, in fact, intended to sever his or her employment.”
Case law further dictates that 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 the employee concerned, 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. (Arvin Pascual v. Sittel Philippines Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 240484, March 9, 2020)
Related Articles:
Effects of Voluntary Resignation from Employment
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.