SC - Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee

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.³⁶

 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.³⁷ Thus, voluntariness is essential to the act of resignation. It must be the result of an employee's exercise of his or her own will.³⁸

SALVADOR DELA FUENTE, et al. vs. MARILYN E. GIMENEZ, G.R. No. 214419. November 17, 2021 

^Footnotes

³⁶ See Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc., G.R. Nos. 191460 & 191464, 31 January 2018 [Per J. Leonen] and Jacob v. Villaseran Maintenance Service Corp., G.R. No. 243951, 20 January 2021 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier].

³⁷ Jacob v. Villaseran Maintenance Service Corp., G.R. No. 243951, 20 January 2021 [per J. Lazaro-Javier].

³⁸ LBC Express-Vis, Inc. v. Palco, G.R. No. 217101, 12 February 2020 [Per J. Leonen] citing Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) v. Rebesencio, 750 Phil. 791 (2015) [Per J. Leonen].

NOTE:

The required 30-day grace period for the effectivity of the resignation letter benefits the employer but is at the employer's discretion to shorten the period. |

The Court held in one case thus:

"We held that the act of the employer moving the effectivity of the resignation is not an act of harassment. 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.58

Such rule 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.59

Thus, the act of respondents moving the effectivity date of petitioner’s resignation to a date earlier than what she had stated cannot be deemed malicious. This cannot be viewed as an act of harassment but merely the exercise of respondent's management prerogative. We cannot expect employers to maintain in their employ employees who intend to resign, just so the latter can have continuous work as they look for a new source of income.

ROSALINDA G. PAREDES, Petitioner, vs. FEED THE CHILDREN PHILIPPINES, INC. and/or DR. VIRGINIA LAO, HERCULES PARADIANG and BENJAMIN ESCOBIA, Respondents. September 9, 2015 G.R. No. 184397