COMPLETE DIGEST CHAM.docx - Amkor Technology vs Juangco 512 SCRA 325(2007 FACTS HELD Due to business losses petitioner-company company saw the need to

COMPLETE DIGEST CHAM.docx - Amkor Technology vs Juangco 512...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 22 pages.

Amkor Technology vs Juangco 512 SCRA 325 (2007) FACTS: Due to business losses, petitioner-company company saw the need to reduce its existing manpower complement. Several meetings were held among its officers and department heads to discuss actions to be taken to implement the same. Sometime in October, 2001, petitioner-company convened its key officers and department heads, including respondent, to finally decide whether to implement a voluntary retirement/voluntary separation program or a retrenchment program. During the meeting, respondent expressed her interest and volunteered to personally participate in the downsizing program of the company’s personnel. To formalize her decision to retire from the company, respondent submitted an undated letter signifying her intention to avail of the Voluntary Retirement Program of the company, effective 15 November 2001. A week thereafter, or on November 22, 2001, pursuant to her proposition, respondent received her voluntary retirement package in the amount of Three Million Seven Hundred Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventeen Pesos and 98/100 (P 3,704,517.98) inclusive of an additional two (2) months pay. Respondent signed a Receipt and Release Waiver and Quitclaim on the same date. She filed her complaint for illegal dismissal on April 25, 2002, or after almost six (6) months from her separation from petitioner-company. Respondent denied the due execution of her Release Quitclaim and Waiver, alleging that she signed the same under duress and intimidation. She claimed that she was threatened that she will receive nothing if she will not sign it. Petitioners maintain that respondent’s resignation was voluntary, perforce, there could be no illegal dismissal. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent voluntarily retired from her position as Executive Director in petitioner-company. HELD: Respondent was not coerced or intimidated into signing her retirement letter. The voluntariness of her retirement is attested and confirmed by top ranking officials of petitioner- company then present during the meeting in October 2001. She failed to present evidence to contradict their statements. Respondent received her retrenchment backwage a week after she submitted her resignation paper. She had ample time to mull over what courses of action to take if indeed she was illegally dismissed. Instead, she returned to the company to sign the Receipt and Release Waiver and Quit Claim and to receive her retirement package. Thereafter, she looked for employment in other companies It is thus clear that the filing of the complaint was merely an afterthought when she failed to find another employment While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be expected that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play
Image of page 1
Anino vs NLRC 290 SCRA 489 (1998) FACTS: Complainants allege that they are employees of respondent Hinatuan Mining Corporation (HMC) holding supervisory positions. Sometime in
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture