This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-07-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We reiterate that it is axiomatic in labor law that the employer who interposes the defense of voluntary resignation of the employee in an illegal dismissal case must prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that the resignation was voluntary; and that the employer cannot rely on the weakness of the defense of the employee.[23] The requirement rests on the need to resolve any doubt in favor of the working man. | |||||
|
2013-01-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Since Gan submitted a resignation letter, it is incumbent upon him to prove with clear, positive, and convincing evidence that his resignation was not voluntary but was actually a case of constructive dismissal; that it is a product of coercion or intimidation.[37] He has to prove his allegations with particularity. | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Mere allegations of threat or force do not constitute evidence to support a finding of forced resignation. In order for intimidation to vitiate consent, the following requisites must concur: (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.[27] | |||||
|
2010-06-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[14] The Court of Appeals may review the factual findings of the NLRC and reverse its ruling if it finds that the decision of the NLRC lacks substantial basis,[15] as it did in this case. | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The first is the settled rule that in employee termination disputes, the employer bears the burden of proving that the employee's dismissal was for just and valid cause.[25] That Peñaflor did indeed file a letter of resignation does not help the company's case as, other than the fact of resignation, the company must still prove that the employee voluntarily resigned.[26] There can be no valid resignation where the act was made under compulsion or under circumstances approximating compulsion, such as when an employee's act of handing in his resignation was a reaction to circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign.[27] In sum, the evidence does not support the existence of voluntariness in Peñaflor's resignation. | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
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] | |||||