This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Based on the petitioners' own allegations, what the respondent did was merely inform them of petitioner Edna's conviction in the criminal cases for estafa. It might have evoked a sense of fear or dread on the petitioners' part, but certainly there is nothing unjust, unlawful or evil in the respondent's act. The petitioners also failed to show how such information was used by the respondent in coercing them into signing the mortgages. The petitioners must remember that petitioner Edna's conviction was a result of a valid judicial process and even without the respondent allegedly "ramming it into petitioner Victor's throat," petitioner Edna's imprisonment would be a legal consequence of such conviction. In Callanta v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] the Court stated that the threat to prosecute for estafa not being an unjust act, but rather a valid and legal act to enforce a claim, cannot at all be considered as intimidation.[30] As correctly ruled by the CA, "[i]f the judgment of conviction is the only basis of the [petitioners] in saying that their consents were vitiated, such will not suffice to nullify the real estate mortgages and the subsequent foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. No proof was adduced to show that [the respondent] used [force], duress, or threat to make [petitioner] Victor execute the real estate mortgages."[31] | |||||
|
2014-02-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Callanta v. National Labor Relations Commission,[31] this Court ruled that:It is highly unlikely and incredible for a man of petitioner's position and educational attainment to so easily succumb to private respondent company's alleged pressures without even defending himself nor demanding a final audit report before signing any resignation letter. Assuming that pressure was indeed exerted against him, there was no urgency for petitioner to sign the resignation letter. He knew the nature of the letter that he was signing, for as argued by respondent company, petitioner being "a man of high educational attainment and qualification, x x x he is expected to know the import of everything that he executes, whether written or oral.[32] | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Callanta v. National Labor Relations Commission,[27] this Court ruled that: It is highly unlikely and incredible for a man of petitioner's position and educational attainment to so easily succumb to private respondent company's alleged pressures without even defending himself nor demanding a final audit report before signing any resignation letter. Assuming that pressure was indeed exerted against him, there was no urgency for petitioner to sign the resignation letter. He knew the nature of the letter that he was signing, for as argued by respondent company, petitioner being "a man of high educational attainment and qualification, x x x he is expected to know the import of everything that he executes, whether written or oral."[28] | |||||
|
2004-12-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Callanta v. National Labor Relations Commission,[9] a national-promoter salesman of Distilleria Limtuaco Co., Inc., assigned in Iligan City, Lanao del Sur and Lanao Del Norte, resigned after he was found to have a shortage of P49,005.49 in a "spot audit" conducted by the company. He later filed an illegal dismissal case claiming that his consent to the resignation was vitiated as he signed the company's ready made resignation letter because the latter threatened to file a estafa case against him. In rejecting his contention, the Court ruled that a salesman-promoter could not have been confused, coerced or intimidated into signing the resignation letter. Instead of defending himself against the adverse audit report, he voluntarily signed the resignation letter though there is no urgency in signing the same. The Court concluded that he affixed his signature in the said letter of his own free will with full knowledge of the consequences thereof. | |||||