Claim of Involuntariness in Employee Resignation
Resignation is one of the rights granted to employees under Article 300 of the Labor Code, as amended.
In the case of Italkarat 18, Inc. vs. Gerasmio (G.R. No. 221411, September 28, 2020), the Supreme Court (SC) held that records are bereft of substantial evidence that will unmistakably establish a case of constructive dismissal.
An act, to be considered as amounting to constructive dismissal, must be a display of utter discrimination or insensibility on the part of the employer so intense that it becomes unbearable for the employee to continue with his employment. Citing the case of Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) vs. Pulgar, the SC held:
“It is a well-settled rule, however, that before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.
In the instant case, the records are bereft of substantial evidence that will unmistakably establish a case of constructive dismissal. An act, to be considered as amounting to constructive dismissal, must be a display of utter discrimination or insensibility on the part of the employer so intense that it becomes unbearable for the employee to continue with his employment. Here, the circumstances relayed by Gemina were not clear-cut indications of bad faith or some malicious design on the part of Bankwise to make his working environment insufferable.
Moreover, Bankwise was able to address the allegation of harassment hurled against its officers and offered a plausible justification for its actions, x x x.
Finally, as regards Gemina’s allegation that he was verbally being compelled to go on leave, enough it is to say that there was no evidence presented to prove the same. There was not a single letter or document
Acquire Mastery of HR/Labor Doctrines, Rules and Principles with Atty. Elvin’s HR Bundle Books at Discounted Rate
that would corroborate his claim that he was being forced to quit employment. He even went on leave in January 2003 and never claimed that it was prompted by the management’s prodding but did so out of his own volition.
Without substantial evidence to support his claim, Gemina’s claim of constructive dismissal must fail. It is an inflexible rule that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence, for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand without offending due process.”
Citing another case, Gan vs. Galderma Philippines, Inc., the SC held that where the employee alleges that he involuntarily resigned due to circumstances in his employment that are tantamount to constructive dismissal, the employee must prove his allegations with particularity, to wit:
“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. He has to prove his allegations with particularity.
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. Neither do the facts of this case disclose that Gan was intimidated.
The instances of ‘harassment’ alleged by Gan are more apparent than real. Aside from the need to treat his accusations with caution for being self-serving due to lack of substantial documentary or testimonial evidence to corroborate the same, the acts of ‘harassment,’ if true, do not suffice to be considered as ‘peculiar circumstances’ material to the execution of the subject resignation letter.”
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is therefore not enough for the employee to allege that he was threatened and thereafter misled to resign in order for the tribunals and courts to rule that he was constructively dismissed. Juraldine must prove with particularity the alleged acts of coercion and intimidation which led him to resign. This, Juraldine failed to do.
Furthermore, we observe that the evidence on record show that Juraldine had already intended to resign in 2008, even earlier than October. The evidence presented by the Company would show that Juraldine in fact requested for multiple leaves on various occassions, usually for processing of his papers for work abroad. Juraldine’s allegation that the Company was already considering retrenching its employees during the last quarter of 2008 or earlier, which Juraldine would want to impress upon this Court to be the catalyst that prompted San Pedro to make the alleged offer of resignation to Juraldine, would not have made any difference in view of the fact that Juraldine was already in the process of applying for a job overseas or at the very least, intending to go abroad.
To summarize, if the fact of dismissal is disputed, it is the complainant who should substantiate his claim for dismissal and the one burdened with the responsibility of proving that he was dismissed from employment, whether actually or constructively. Unless the fact of dismissal is proven, the validity or legality thereof cannot even be an issue.
In the present case of Italkarat, the fact of the matter is that it was Juraldine himself who resigned from his work, as shown by the resignation letter he submitted and the quitclaim that he acknowledged, and thus, he was never dismissed by the Company.
Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin 
Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:
Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:
Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing