Resignation

1. Concept

Resignation is the formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or office. (Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc. v. Siason, G.R. No. 215555, July 29, 2015, Per Perlas-Bernabe, J.)

Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate oneself from employment. (Pascua v. Bank Wise Inc., G.R. No. 191460, 31 January 2018)

In cases of voluntary resignation, the employee finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment; hence, the law affords the employee the right to resign regardless of whether the company has found an able and competent replacement and whether the operation of the company would be affected provided he serves a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. (PHIMCO Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118041, June 11, 1997, Per Bellosillo, J.)

2. Jurisprudential requisites

The following are the requisites for a valid resignation:

1) Intent to relinquish/resign; and

2) Overt act of relinquishment/resignation.

For resignation from employment to be valid, there must be an intent to relinquish the position together with the overt act of relinquishment. Resignation must be voluntary. In illegal dismissal cases, the employer, if defense of resignation is presented, must show that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned. (Bance v. University of St. Anthony and Santiago Ortega, Jr., G.R. No. 202724, February 3, 2021, Per Hernando, J.)

a. Intent to relinquish/resign

Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice or is otherwise compelled to dissociate oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office and must be made with the intention of relinquishing the office, accompanied by the act of relinquishment or abandonment. A resignation must be unconditional and with the intent to operate as such. Thus, essential to the act of resignation is voluntariness. It must be the result of an employee’s exercise of his or her own will. (Dela Fuente v. Gimenez, G.R. No. 214419, November 17, 2021, Per Zalameda, J.)

Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc. v. Siason, G.R. No. 215555, July 29, 2015, Per Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

• [The Employers] did not constructively dismiss Siason; but rather, the latter voluntarily resigned from her job in order to avoid a full-blown administrative trial regarding her misdeeds which could potentially result in her termination for just cause. While it may be said that she did not tender her resignation wholeheartedly, circumstances of her own making did not give her any other option but to voluntarily do so. Therefore, in view of her voluntary resignation from CABI, she is not entitled to any separation pay in the absence of any agreement with [the Employers] providing for such.

See: Case Digest |Original Decision

Bance v. University of St. Anthony and Santiago Ortega, Jr., G.R. No. 202724, February 3, 2021, Per Hernando, J.:

• In the instant case, the fact of petitioners’ resignation is undisputed. Lobetania tendered her resignation on July 27, 2007, and was approved by Atty. Ortega on August 9, 2007. Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre tendered their resignation on December 22, 2007, and these were approved by Atty. Ortega on December 26, 2007. In examining the totality of circumstances, respondents showed that Lobetania, Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre voluntarily resigned prior to the effectivity date of the termination of their employment. There were ongoing investigations against petitioners for the irregular acts they committed thereby placing them in a difficult position. Moreover, from the wording of the resignation letters, it can be implied that petitioners’ resignations were voluntary. Though not the sole test, the wording of resignation letters may be considered as a factor, together with other circumstances, in assessing the voluntariness of a resignation. Also, to emphasize, petitioners did not contend or present countervailing evidence that their resignation was involuntary. Likewise, “it is settled that there is nothing reprehensible or illegal when the employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save face rather than smear the latter’s employment record.”

See: Case Digest | Original Decision

b. Overt act of relinquishment/resignation

1) 30-day advance written notice

ART. 300. [285] Termination by Employee.  (a) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee -employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. x x x  (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, a.k.a. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES)

The intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment; hence, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he in fact intended to terminate his employment. (Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc. v. Siason [2015], supra.)

Intertrod Maritime, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 81087, June 19, 1991, Per Padilla, J.:

• The employer has no control over resignations and so, the notification requirement was devised in order to ensure that no disruption of work would be involved by reason of the resignation. This practice has been recognized because “every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits by adopting a device or means designed towards that goal.”

• Resignations, once accepted and being the sole act of the employee, may not be withdrawn without the consent of the employer. In the instant case, the Master had already accepted the resignation and, although the private respondent was being required to serve the thirty (30) days notice provided in the contract, his resignation was already approved. Private respondent cannot claim that his resignation ceased to be effective because he was not immediately discharged in Port Pylos, Greece, for he could no longer unilaterally withdraw such resignation. When he later signified his intention of continuing his work, it was already up to the petitioners to accept his withdrawal of his resignation. The mere fact that they did not accept such withdrawal did not constitute illegal dismissal for acceptance of the withdrawal of the resignation was their (petitioners’) sole prerogative.

See: Case Digest

a) No specific format

There is no specific format to the written notice. After the date of the document, mention of the immediate supervisor or the human resources department (depending on Company Policies), the body may simply indicate:

[Date]

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

I hereby tender my formal resignation effective 30-days after or on [indicate: last day]

(sgd.) [Employee’s Complete Name]

Then, the notice should be signed by the employee.

b) No specific wording

1) Memorandum without resignation words, deemed a resignation letter

Philippines Today, Inc. v. Go-Belmonte, G.R. No. 112965, January 30, 1997, Per Panganiban, J.:

• May a “Memorandum for File” which did not mention the words “resign” and/or “resignation” nonetheless juridically constitute voluntary resignation? In answering this question, the Court took into account not merely the literal meaning of the words and phrases used but, more importantly, the peculiar circumstances attendant to its writing as well as antecedent, contemporaneous and subsequent actions, which were inconsistent with the desire for continued employment of the writer, an intelligent executive occupying a position of trust in the Philippine Star and gifted with an unusual writing ability.

• Both the Constitution and the Labor Code mandate a bias in favor of labor. Hence, this Court , as a matter of judicial policy, leans backwards to protect labor and the working class against the machinations and incursions of their more financially entrenched employers. In the present case, however, it is obvious to us that private respondent’s memorandum could not have been intended merely to persuade management to improve the work environment at the Philippine Star. Rather, it was evidently a recitation of the facts and reasons why respondent Alegre could no longer continue working under what he believed were unbearable conditions in the work place. The offensive language used by a well-educated man endowed with unusual writing skill could not have been intended merely for the “suggestion box.” That it was addressed and given to persons of uncommon perception themselves takes the letter out of ordinary employer-employee communications. It is true that there was no direct mention of the word “resignation.” However, the incendiary words employed denote a clear intent to end the writer’s association of trust and confidence with his superiors and employer. This intent becomes even more manifest when viewed in light of attendant acts of Alegre, particularly his prolonged leave of absence, his clearing of his own desk of personal belongings, his failure to report back to work after the expiration of his approved leave, his verbal expression of his intent to resign, and most notably, his assumption of a higher paying job in a political office which was incompatible with his work at the Star. (Emphasis supplied.)

See: Original Decision | Case Digest

2) Render period

ART. 300. [285] Termination by Employee.  (a) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee -employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages. x x x (LABOR CODE)

PHIMCO Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118041, June 11, 1997, Per Bellosillo, J.:

• We find the penalty of dismissal imposed on Carpio for non-observance of the rules and regulations provided in the Handbook of PHIMCO, particularly Rules 7, 7.1 and 7.2 concerning the resignation of the employee, too harsh. There is no dispute that Carpio failed to comply with company rules and regulations regarding his resignation. Nonetheless, it has to be noted and emphasized that he did not outrightly disregard the same. Looking back at the antecedents, it was on 14 August 1991 that he tendered his resignation to take effect fifteen (15) days later or on 30 August 1991. Before that period expired he still reported for work. Significantly, the fact that his letter of resignation was only acted upon after he had left for United States opens the avenues for speculations and suspicions. While he continued to work to await the acceptance of his resignation, he was not even informed of the status thereof or that he had to stay for fifteen (15) more days. The rule could have been easily pointed out or relayed to him by Mr. Lopez to whom he handed his letter of resignation and who was staying with him in the same office. But management waited until after he had left for the United States. Evidently, there was bad faith in the manner his resignation was resolved.

See: Case Digest | Original Decision

a) Damages if 30-day notice not complied

ART. 300. [285] Termination by Employee.  (a) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee -employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.

(b) An employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just causes:

1. Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employee;

2. Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representative;

3. Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and

4. Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing. (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, a.k.a. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES)

The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages. (Article 300 [a], Labor Code)

The employer may file an action for damages before regular courts (MTC/RTC), and not with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

b) When 30-day notice not required

An employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just causes:

1) Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employee;

2) Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representative;

3) Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and,

4) Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing. (Article 300 [b], Labor Code)

c) Shortening of 30 days to render: employer’s option

The rule of requiring an employee to stay or complete the 30-day period prior to the effectivity of his resignation becomes discretionary on the part of management as an employee who intends to resign may be allowed a shorter period before his resignation becomes effective. In the instant case, the noncompliance with the period should not be used by management as a subterfuge to avoid the payment of separation pay. (PHIMCO Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118041, June 11, 1997, Per Bellosillo, J.)

The 30-day notice requirement for an employee’s resignation is actually for the benefit of the employer who has the discretion to waive such period. Its purpose is to afford the employer enough time to hire another employee if needed and to see to it that there is proper turn-over of the tasks which the resigning employee may be handling. (Hechanova Bugay Vilchez Lawyers, Hechanova & Co., Inc. v. Matorre, G.R. No. 198261, 16 October 2013)

d) Longer period for notice and service

The employer and the employee may stipulate in the employment contract to a longer period than 30 days (e.g. 60 day, etc.) if the position is highly technical resulting in a difficulty in hiring a replacement.

[c] Totality of circumstances

To determine whether the employee indeed intended to relinquish his or her employment, the act of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered.[39] In order to determine whether the employees truly intended to resign from their respective posts, We must take into consideration the totality of circumstances in each particular case. (Dela Fuente v. Gimenez [2021], supra.)

3. Acceptance by employer

More: Employer’s Acceptance of Employee’s Resignation

4. No separation pay

Resigning employees are not entitled to separation pay, which is due only for authorized cause separation, such as installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment, among others. In these situations, the employee is being separated from their employment through no fault of theirs rather the employer is exercising its management prerogative to let go of employees for business or economic reasons. Since it is not the fault of the employees, the employers are required to provide separation pay to assist the affected employees in their transition to their next gainful employment.

That is not the case at all with resigning employees. They themselves decided to willfully and voluntarily severe their employment with the Company. Thus, separation from their employment is attributable to the employees themselves.

5. Burden of proof

When it comes to burden of proof, it shifts depending on what is at issue.

a. On employee: Fact of dismissal

Indeed, in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer in proving the validity of dismissal. However, the fact of dismissal, if disputed, must be duly proven by the complainant. (Italkarat 18, Inc. v. Gerasmio, G.R. No. 221411, 28 September 2020)

ITALKARAT 18, Inc. v. Gerasmio, G.R. No. 221411, 28 September 2020, Per Hernando, J.:             

⦁ [The Complainant] clearly has the burden of proving that he was dismissed by the Company, in light of the Company’s allegation that he resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed. Hence, [the Complainant] must first prove that he was actually dismissed by the Company before the legality of such dismissal can even be raised as an issue.

⦁ However, even a cursory perusal of the evidence on record would show that [the Complainant] failed to prove the fact of dismissal. He relied primarily on his allegations that he was misled by the Company into resigning and that he was actually retrenched. These uncorroborated and self-serving allegations, especially considering the existence of a resignation letter and a quitclaim (both bearing [the Complainant’s] signature), fall short of the evidence required under the law to discharge [the Complainant’s] burden to prove that he was dismissed by the Company.

See: Case Digest | Original Decision

b. On employer: Validity of resignation

In illegal dismissal cases, when an employer raises the defense of resignation, the burden to establish the voluntariness of such resignation rests on the employer. (Dela Fuente DBA SM Seafood Products v. Gimenez, G.R. No. 214419, 17 November 2021)

Even if the employer claims that the employee resigned, the employer still has the burden of proving that the resignation was voluntary. (Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc., G.R. No. 191460, 31 January 2018)

Dela Fuente DBA SM Seafood Products v. Gimenez, G.R. No. 214419, 17 November 2021, Per Zalameda, J.:

⦁ In the instant case, Gimenez specifically denies the authenticity and due execution of the resignation letter and quitclaim she supposedly signed. Consequently, petitioners bore the burden of proving otherwise, which they utterly failed to do.

⦁ [W]e are inclined to give credence to the petitioner’s contention that she had previously signed blank papers and the respondents caused the printing of the words on these blank papers after her signature had been procured. Under such circumstances, it is therefore obvious that these documents were not voluntarily signed by the petitioner. She signed the blank papers without the intention of having the same used as a resignation letter and/or quitclaim and release. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible in itself, such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.

See: Case Digest | Original Decision

7. Distinguished

a. Voluntary resignation v. Involuntary resignation (constructive dismissal)

Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. v. Manuel, G.R. No. 249843, October 6, 2021, Per Zalameda, J.:

• In the instant case, the totality of evidence establishes the unfairness and unjustness of respondent’s situation. Considering what respondent went through, the Court agrees that her unbearable condition and environment precipitated her repatriation. The CA’s finding on this is worth quoting:

In filing this labor complaint, petitioner maintained that she was constructively dismissed, citing several circumstances making her continued employment unendurable and unacceptable. She enumerated in detailer her concerns such as (1) she was deployed in Abha not in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; (2) the sexual advances of the male employer unto her including the touching of her breasts and forcing her to touch his private part; (3) her transfer to another employment agency, United Project; (4) she was locked along -with another applicant in a room and were not given water to drink or decent food to eat. To the Court’s mind, these circumstances attributable to private respondents are easily rebuttable. Interestingly, though, neither Ascent Skills Human Resources nor Silver refute these…

• [R]espondent had the right to refuse her employment in Abha. The employment she signed for was in Riyadh… Also, Silver Contract’s office was in Riyadh. Clearly, respondent was made to believe that she was bound for Riyadh, not Abha.

• Since Silver Contract could not immediately find the right employment opportunity for the respondent, the least it could do for her was to provide her with appropriate living conditions. Instead, out of spite, Silver Contract placed her in a miserable situation that forced the latter to sever her employment. What Silver Contract did under the circumstances is indubitably tantamount to constructive dismissal. As recently held by the Court, there is constructive dismissal where the employer intentionally places the employee in a situation that will result in the latter being coerced into severing his ties with the former.

See: Original Decision | Case Digest

Pascual v. Sitel Philippines Corporation, G.R. No. 240484, March 9, 2020, Per Inting, J.:

• First, the e-mail which petitioner sent to Lee, Sitel’s COO, manifesting his intention to resign categorically and unequivocally expressed his intention to disassociate himself from the company. In the same e-mail, he even asked for: (1) the payment of his salaries, and (2) the issuance of his certificate of employment.

• Petitioner wrote:

This is the most painful decision so far that I have ever made in my life. Farthest from the wildest of my imagination that I will ever have a rendezvous with a very dark chapter of a person’s professional career – BEING LEFT WTH NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO DISASSOCIATE MYSELF FROM EMPLOYMENT WITH SITEL. x x x

x x x x

Truly, I am now in a very discouraged, depressed, exhausted and dejected state emanating from the present inhumane working environment I am being made to suffer. Hence, it FORECLOSES ANY CHOICE BUT FOR ME TO FOREGO CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT WITH SITEL.

The conduct of the following persons toward me have become unbearable already. In consequence, I AM IMPELLED TO GIVE UP MY EIGHT YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH SITEL:

x x x x

• On December 11, 2014, petitioner brought a copy of his resignation letter to Sitel’s operations manager, and asked her to read it and acknowledge its receipt.

• Second, petitioner e-mailed another copy of the resignation letter to Reyes on December 12, 2014 and reiterated his resignation. After that, he sent a hard copy of the resignation letter to the company via registered mail.

• Third, petitioner went back to Sitel on December 18, 2014 with a resignation letter of even date. The following day, Sitel formally accepted his resignation.

• Since petitioner submitted his resignation letter on several occasions, 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 or that it is a product of coercion or intimidation. He has to prove his allegations with particularity.

• In Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc., the Court held that an unconditional and categorical letter of resignation cannot be considered indicative of constructive dismissal if it is submitted by an employee fully aware of its effects and implications.

• Similarly, Panasonic v. Peckson, teaches that the Court does not sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which, at most, create only suspicion; otherwise, it would be indulging in speculations and surmises. Petitioner failed to show any substantial evidence that he was treated unfairly and, thus, he was forced to resign. He failed to show any tangible acts of harassment, insults, and any abuse that would warrant a possible finding of constructive dismissal.

• Here, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, Sitel aptly established that petitioner’s e-mails and resignation letter showed the voluntariness of his separation from the company. While the fact of filing a resignation letter alone does not shift the burden of proof, it is still incumbent upon the employer to prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. In petitioner’s case, the facts show that the resignation letter is grounded in petitioner’s desire to leave the company as opposed to any deceitful machination or coercion on the part of Sitel. His subsequent and contemporaneous actions belie the claim that petitioner was subjected to harassment by Sitel…

• Petitioner could not have been coerced as well. 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 petitioner’s narration of facts prove that he was intimidated. In one case, the Court enumerated the requisites for intimidation to vitiate one’s consent, including: (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.

See: Original Decision |  Case Digest

Lagamayo v. Cullinan Group, Inc., G.R. No. 227718, November 11, 2021, Per Lopez, J., J.:

• Constructive dismissal exists as an involuntary resignation on the part of the employee due to the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. 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 [or her] employment. By definition, constructive dismissal can happen in any number of ways. At its core, however, is the gratuitous, unjustified, or unwarranted nature of the employer’s action. Constructive dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise, or also known as constructive discharge.

• The nature of constructive dismissal as a dismissal in disguise enables the employers to do away with their obligation to prove just cause and comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing before terminating their employees. Consequently, in the recent case of Jacob v. First Step Manpower Int’l. Services, Inc., the Court held that constructive dismissal is a form of illegal dismissal. Simply put, constructive dismissal results in the employers’ circumvention of the due process requirements of the law in terminating an employee, which effectively undermines their security of tenure.

1) Threatened with criminal prosecution

Gabrillo v. Tri-J Marketing, G.R. No. 279863, August 26, 2026, Per Hernando, J.:

• … the Employer]’s conduct effectively deprived [the Employee] of any meaningful choice but to resign. He was repeatedly confronted with allegations of substantial financial losses and was urged to resign under threat of criminal prosecution. Objectively viewed, these circumstances rendered continued employment no longer reasonable or viable. Although [the Employee] consistently denied the accusations and refused to resign, the ultimatum presented to him—resignation or criminal prosecution—cannot be regarded as a voluntary choice. Such coercive conduct is sufficient to constitute constructive dismissal.

See: Case Digest | Original Decision