6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly to give the other prior written notice as provided in the contract.[89] Despite the grounds cited in the notice of termination, Alemaya University opted to take the "no cause" route in terminating the Contract of Employment. In this case, the contract provided that the other party be given a three-month advance notice, a requirement that Alemaya University complied with. It is well to note that the right to terminate the Contract of Employment at will was also available to respondent, who exercised that right when she signified her change of mind and rejected the job at the Internal Audit Department. This detail was appreciated even by the labor arbiter who found that respondent had quit her job. It cannot be denied that when respondent accepted the post offered at the Internal Audit Department, the parties had decided to revert to the status quo ante of harmonious employment relationship and to do away with the previous termination of her employment. Respondent's letter to President Kassa is illuminative of this point: Dear Prof. Belay: I am glad to accept the job at the Internal Audit Department. It is an honor to work under the Office of the President. Be rest assured that I will try my very best to live up to your expectations. My only concern is the proximity of my residence in Harar to the campus. Convenience is necessary for the effective and efficient performance of my duties and responsibilities. The job is a tough one that will need my full attention and concentration. I may make use of Saturdays and Sundays for the job. Further, the Harar residence will be very crowded as there will be two families with children or a total of seventeen (17) persons who will be occupying the said residence when the family of Ms. Irene Ycoy arrives on the second week of May. In consideration thereof, may I request that I be provided with a separate housing unit inside the campus? Thank you very much.[90] Nothing in the letter gives the impression that respondent understood that the engagement was temporary or effective only until the three-month grace period was through as provided in the termination letter. She even requested a separate housing unit inside the campus. As correctly found by the NLRC, the logical conclusion is that the parties had agreed to let her employment continue in the university under the Contract of Employment, albeit in a different capacity. When respondent later decided that she did not want the new job for personal reasons, she exercised her right to terminate the Contract of Employment. Respondent made a belated unilateral declaration in her letter to President Kassa dated 27 April 2006. Indeed, her declaration therein that "the advance notice of termination elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60760 11/20