Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ST. MICHAEL ACADEMY v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 177167 2013-01-17	NELSON B. GAN v. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
On April 21, 2003, Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala dismissed the complaint for constructive dismissal.[13] He noted that Gan's separation from Galderma was voluntarily initiated and was concluded by the written resignation letter which was accepted in a business-like manner through a formal office correspondence. The text of Gan's letter was treated as conclusive, res ipsa loquitur. Agreeing with respondents' contention, the Labor Arbiter cited the case of St. Michael Academy v. NLRC[14] insofar as it enumerated the requisites of intimidation which would vitiate one's consent, but are wanting in Gan's case. Likewise pointed out was the presence of the sworn affidavits separately executed by Gan's former co-workers Gerry M. Castro, Annalyn M. Gamboa, Winston M. Marquez, and Abigail R. Peralta which were fully supportive of respondents' defenses. Lastly, applying Samaniego v. NLRC,[15] Dizon, Jr. vs. NLRC,[16] Habana v. NLRC,[17] and San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (PTGWO) v. Ople[18] invoked by respondents, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Gan surely understood the legal effects of his resignation letter considering that he is an Industrial Engineering graduate of the Mapua Institute of Technology and has Master of Business Administration (MBA) units in Letran College. The fallo of the Decision disposed:
	GR No. 178127 2009-04-16	VIRGEN SHIPPING CORPORATION v. JESUS B. BARRAQUIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respondent's bare claim that he was forced to execute his resignation letter deserves no merit. Bare allegations of threat or force do not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding of forced resignation.[11] That such claim was proferred a year later all the more renders his contention bereft of merit.
	GR NO. 174644 2007-08-10	GLOBE TELECOM v. JENETTE MARIE B. CRISOLOGO CORONA, J.
In St. Michael Academy v. NLRC,[55] we held that expressions of gratitude cannot possibly come from an employee who is just forced to resign as they belie allegations of coercion.[56] Moreover, the May 2, 2002 letter was sent after respondent's April 30, 2002 conversation with petitioner Gonzales. Indeed, if something untoward really took place in the course of that conversation, experience dictates that respondent would not have bothered to thank petitioner Gonzales. Therefore, respondent's assertion that she was forced to resign was simply not true.