This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-08-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In this case, we find no overt act on the part of petitioner that he was ready to sever his employment ties. The alleged resignation was actually premised by respondents only on the filing of the complaint for separation pay, but this alone is not sufficient proof that petitioner intended to resign from the company. What strongly negates the claim of resignation is the fact that petitioner filed the amended complaint for illegal dismissal immediately after he was not allowed to report for work on June 3, 2000. Resignation is inconsistent with the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal.[11] It would have been illogical for petitioner to resign and then file a complaint for illegal dismissal later on.[12] If petitioner was determined to resign, as respondents posited, he would not have commenced the action for illegal dismissal. Undeniably, petitioner was unceremoniously dismissed in this case. | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, well-entrenched is the rule that resignation is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.[40] To be valid, the resignation must be unconditional, with the intent to operate as such; there must be a clear intention to relinquish the position.[41] In this case, respondent actively pursued her illegal dismissal case against petitioner, such that she cannot be said to have voluntarily resigned from her job. | |||||