This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-10-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| And in Samaniego v. National Labor Relations Commission,[70] this Court noted that therein petitioners were "not ordinary laborers or rank-and-file personnel who may not be able to completely comprehend and realize the consequences of their acts, x x x [that in fact, therein] petitioners are managerial employees holding responsible positions[; and that moreover] they are educated individuals:"[71] basic considerations which impelled this Court into concluding that: "it can hardly be said that they were coerced into resigning from the company."[72] | |||||
|
2013-01-17 |
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: | |||||
|
2011-07-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| SMPI posits that the Court of Appeals' finding of illegal dismissal was at best conjectural, based as it is on a misapprehension of facts and on Gucaban's self-serving allegations of alienation and humiliation which, nevertheless, could not have given sufficient motivation for her to resign. It insists that Gucaban, in exchange for a benefits package, has voluntarily tendered her resignation following the presentation to her of the possibility of company reorganization and of the resulting abolition of her office as necessitated by the company's business losses at the time. It adds that Gucaban has, in fact, been able to negotiate with the company for a better separation package which she voluntarily accepted as shown by her unconditional resignation letter and the accompanying Receipt and Release form. [31] It cites Samaniego v. NLRC, [32] Sicangco v. NLRC, [33] Domondon v. NLRC [34] and Guerzon v. Pasig Industries, Inc. [35] to support its cause. [36] | |||||