The law is solicitous of the welfare of employees because they stand on unequal footing with their employers and are usually left at the mercy of the latter. This is especially true of Filipino migrant workers who, alone in a foreign country, might have no adequate alternative resources even for their own personal daily needs.  Hence, quitclaims signed by our migrant workers, such as the Letters of Indemnity in the instant case, are viewed with strong disfavor. Public policy dictates that they be presumed to have been executed at the behest of the employer. It is the employer’s duty to prove that such quitclaims were voluntary.  The [16] employee’s acknowledgment of his termination with nary a protest or objection is not enough to satisfy the requirement of voluntariness on his part. [17] Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. [18] It would have been illogical for respondents to resign and then claim that they were illegally terminated.  Well-entrenched is the rule that resignation is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal.  We note that respondents Cuesta and Gonzaga, when repatriated to Manila, had each been employed for only a little over two (2) months and less than one (1) month, respectively. Prior to their repatriation, their monthly salaries were even increased from US$900 to US$1,936. Hence, it is rather strange that they would suddenly resign after barely beginning service of their twelve (12)-month contract.