INTIMIDATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO INVALIDATE RESIGNATION

Dear PAO,
My sister works in the accounting department of a logistics company in Laguna. She had to resign because her supervisors said the company will be forced to file a case against her considering that there
were items which were under her custody that were lost and unaccounted for during the months of
January to March. She said she felt really intimidated and frightened of what may happen to her if a case
will be filed against her, so she immediately executed a letter of apology which included her resignation. She just wants to know whether she can seek to invalidate her resignation because of the
intimidation of her supervisors. She has no work right now and she has been having difficulty in finding a
new job. Please advise me on this matter.
Nolan

Dear Nolan,
Contracts may be invalidated or annulled if the consent of one of the parties thereto was obtained
through intimidation (Article 1330, New Civil Code of the Philippines). This holds true even if there may
have been no damage to the contracting parties (Article 1390 (2), Ibid.)

However, intimidation per se does not suffice to annul a contract. The law requires, for intimidation to
serve as a legal basis in invalidating a contract, that it be of such nature that one of the contracting parties was compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his
person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his
consent. (Article 1335, Id.) It must be equated to unjust or illegal acts. A threat to enforce ones claim
through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent. (Id.)

In the situation of your sister, while she claims that she was driven to resign from her work because of
the supposed intimidation upon her by her supervisors when they told her that a case may be filed
against her, such intimidation is not enough to invalidate or annul the resignation that she made. As
mentioned, the kind of intimidation which vitiates the consent of one of the parties to a contract must
relate to unjust or illegal acts. If the intimidation refers to a threat of enforcing ones claim through a
legal action, such will not render the contract voidable.

In one case, our Supreme Court held:

x x x Moreover, it is a well-settled principle that for intimidation to vitiate consent, petitioner must
have been compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his
person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants (Article
1335, par. 2 New Civil Code). In present case, what allegedly constituted the intimidation was the
threat by private respondent company to file a case for estafa against petitioner unless the latter resigns.

In asserting that the above-described circumstance constituted intimidation, petitioner missed altogether the essential ingredient that would qualify the act complained of as intimidation, i.e. that the
threat must be of an unjust act. In the present case, the threat to prosecute for estafa not being an
unjust act (P.P. Agustinos vs. Del Rey, 56 Phil. 512 [1932]), but rather a valid and legal act to enforce a
claim, cannot at all be considered as intimidation. A threat to enforce ones claim through competent
authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent. (Article 1335, par. 4 New Civil Code). x x x
(Callanta vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 105083, August 20, 1993, 225 SCRA 526)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based sole-ly
on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other
facts are changed or elaborated.