This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Besides, Bilbao did not adduce any competent evidence to prove that she was forced or threatened by Saudia. It must be remembered that for intimidation to vitiate consent, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the intimidation caused the consent to be given; (2) that the threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) 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 (4) 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.[19] In the instant case, Bilbao did not prove the existence of any one of these essential elements. Bare and self-serving allegations of coercion or intimidation, unsubstantiated by evidence, do not constitute proof to sufficiently support a finding of forced resignation. It would be utterly unfair and unjust to hold that Saudia illegally dismissed Bilbao and to impose upon it the burden of accepting back Bilbao who unequivocally and voluntarily manifested her intent and willingness to sever her employment ties. | |||||