Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GLOBE TELECOM v. JENETTE MARIE B. CRISOLOGO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 184517 2013-10-08	SME BANK INC. v. PEREGRIN T. DE GUZMAN SERENO, C.J.
We disagree. While resignation letters containing words of gratitude may indicate that the employees were not coerced into resignation,[40] this fact alone is not conclusive proof that they intelligently, freely and voluntarily resigned. To rule that resignation letters couched in terms of gratitude are, by themselves, conclusive proof that the employees intended to relinquish their posts would open the floodgates to possible abuse. In order to withstand the test of validity, resignations must be made voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing the office, coupled with an act of relinquishment.[41] Therefore, in order to determine whether the employees truly intended to resign from their respective posts, we cannot merely rely on the tenor of the resignation letters, but must take into consideration the totality of circumstances in each particular case.
	GR No. 197384 2013-01-30	SAMPAGUITA AUTO TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. NLRC BRION, J.
This Court, as a rule, only reviews questions of law in a Rule 45 petition for review. In labor cases, the factual findings of the labor arbiter and of the NLRC are generally respected and, if supported by substantial evidence, accorded finality. This rule, however, is not absolute. When the factual findings of the CA conflict with those of the labor authorities, the Court is forced to review the evidence on record.[29]
	GR No. 177167 2013-01-17	NELSON B. GAN v. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
Gan could not have been coerced. Coercion exists when there is a reasonable or well-grounded fear of an imminent evil upon a person or his property or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants.[38] Neither do the facts of this case disclose that Gan was intimidated. In St. Michael Academy v. NLRC,[39] We enumerated the requisites for intimidation to vitiate one's consent, thus: x x x (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. x x x[40]
	GR No. 175481 2012-11-21	DIONISIO F. AUZA v. MOL PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Contrary to their assertions, petitioners were not lured by any misrepresentation by respondents. Instead, they themselves were convinced that their separation was inevitable and for this, they voluntarily resigned. As aptly observed by the CA, no element of force can be deduced from their letters of resignation as the same even contained expressions of gratitude and thus contradicting their allegations that same were prepared by their employer. In Globe Telecom v. Crisologo,[56] we held that allegations of coercion are belied by words of gratitude coming from an employee who is just forced to resign.
	GR No. 197598 2012-11-21	MIRANT CORPORATION v. DANILO A. SARIO BRION, J.
There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. "For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them[,]"[22] which we find to be the situation in this case. In any event, even if we were to consider that the petition raises only factual issues, we still find it necessary to review the case, in view of the divergence of the factual findings between the CA and the NLRC.[23] Based on these divergent factual findings, the NLRC found that Sario had been validly dismissed, while the CA declared illegal the termination of his employment.
	GR No. 178835 2009-02-13	MAGIS YOUNG ACHIEVERS' LEARNING CENTER v. ADELAIDA P. MANALO NACHURA, J.
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and that he has no other choice but to dissociate himself from employment.[37] Voluntary resignation is made with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment.[38] It is the acceptance of an employee's resignation that renders it operative.[39]
	GR No. 170266 2008-09-12	ENGRACIO A. GUERZON v. PASIG INDUSTRIES CORONA, J.
Petitioners held responsible positions in PII. Employees of their educational backgrounds and professional standing do not easily relinquish their legal rights unless they intend to.[13] In fact, petitioners even bargained to improve the terms of the SSP and, after successfully doing so, voluntarily resigned from PII. [14]
	GR NO. 163712 2006-11-30	METROPOLITAN BANK v. JOSE B. TAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for the claim that respondent Eliza Go Tan did not give her consent to the mortgage of the title in question, the same is belied by her signature[28] on Exhibit "18"-Real Estate Mortgage which is annotated as Entry No. 174644 at the back of the title. Her bare denial that the signature was forged, without more, does not lie.