You are on page 1of 1

5. Globe Telecom v. Crisologo, G.R. No.

174644, August 10, 2007, 529 SCRA 811


Jenette Crisologo, a lawyer, joined Globe as a manager in its corporate legal services department. She was rushed to
Makati Med due to profuse bleeding, which was diagnosed as a possible miscarriage.

A week after, she reported back to work (April 12, 2002) and tendered her resignation explaining that she was
advised to rest for the duration of her pregnancy, also she requested the permission to exhaust all her leaves until the
effectivity of her resignation (May 30, 2002), to which Globe accepted.

April 30, she called her immediate supervisor, Gonzales, and in the course of their conversation she was informed
that an email about her allegedly solicited money from one of the company’s supplier circulated. Crisologo
requested a copy of such email and an opportunity to confront the person responsible, but Gonzales declined stating
that there was no reason to pursue the matter.

May 22, Crisologo sent Gonzales a letter complaining of her ill-treatment by the company after she submitted her
resignation letter and confided that she resigned only because the email damaged her reputation and for that reason
she requested Gonzales to issue a certification clearing her of any wrongdoings, misconduct or transgression.
Another letter was sent by her insinuating that Globe forced her to resign, Gonzales informed her that she needed to
settle first her obligations to Globe before they could give her the clearance.

Crisologo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Globe, believing that Globe would not comply to her
demand, and alleged that she was fired due to the rumor that was not proven. Globe contended that the resignation
letter of Crisologo showed her unconditional desire to resign.

Labor Arbiter: dismissed the complaint

NLRC: affirmed LA, statig that a mere rumor could not possible force a lawyer to resign.

CA: reversed NLRC, there is absence of sufficient proof that Crisologo voluntarily resigned.

Issue: Whether or not Crisologo was forced to resign

Ruling: No. LA and NLRC were correct.

Crisologo’s resignation letter proves that she voluntarily resigned. This fact alone negated her claim that Globe
coerced her to resign on April 30, 2002. How could she have been forced to resign if two weeks earlier she tendered
her resignation letter?

Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who finds herself in a situation where she believes that personal
reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and that she has no other choice but to
disassociate herself from employment.

Employees resign for various reasons, human resource studies reveals that various factors in and out of the
workplace affect an employees’ employment decision. In this case it was for the sake her child’s wel-being with
motherhood clearly taking precedence over her job. Crisologo could not have been coerced or intimidated. Coercion
exist when there is 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 ascendant. No such situation existed in this case.

In St. Michael Academy v NLRC, the court held that expressions of gratitude cannot possibly come from an
employee who is just forced to resign as they belie allegations of coercions.