“In termination of cases, the burden of proving just or
valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the
In this case, Saudia makes much of how
respondents supposedly completed their exit interviews,
executed quitclaims, received their separation pay, and
took more than a year to file their Complaint.
If at all,
however, these circumstances prove only the fact of their
respondents’ departure from Saudia is
Mere compliance with standard procedures or processes,
such as the completion of their exit interviews, neither
negates compulsion nor indicates voluntariness.
As with respondent’s resignation letters, their exit
interview forms even support their claim of illegal
dismissal and militates against Saudia’s arguments. These
exit interview forms, as reproduced by Saudia in its own
Petition, confirms the unfavorable conditions as regards
respondents’ maternity leaves. Ma. Jopette’s and Loraine’s
exit interview forms are particularly telling:
From Ma. Jopette’s exit interview form:
, at pp. 610, 715, and 750.
Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Catbonlon
, 523 Phil. 338, 344; 489 SCRA
671, 676 (2006) [Per
Quisumbing, Third Division], citing
Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. NLRC
, 375 Phil. 535; 317 SCRA 120
Pardo, First Division].
, pp. 28, 32, and 35.
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015
Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) vs. Rebesencio
3. In what respects has the job met or failed to meet your