4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly formalities and Rule VII, Section 10 of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides that technical rules are not binding. Indeed, the application of technical rules or procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the demand of substantial justice. [16] On the substantive issue, petitioner insists that he did not resign but was terminated from employment. Petitioner claims that he and the other Filipino crew members were subjects of racial discrimination which resulted from the complaint that they lodged against the vessel’s Greek technician, Angelo Fatorous, due to the latter’s inefficiency and maltreatment of crew members. Petitioner avers that voluntariness was lacking in his decision to write the letter on 3 August 1995 indicating his desire to be relieved from the post, because he was compelled by extreme pressure to prevent the happening of any untoward incident on the vessel.[17] In their Comment, respondents argue that they and the owners of the vessel never initiated the repatriation to Manila of petitioner. All the owners of the vessel did was to advise respondents of their findings on petitioner’s incompetence, negligence, and inability to render satisfactory service, and give petitioner one month to take corrective actions on board the vessel. Respondents, on the other hand, merely relayed to petitioner, through a telex message, said findings and the message of the owners of the vessel. Resignation is 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, such that he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment.[18] This is precisely what obtained in this case. The tenor of petitioner’s telex message was an unmistakeable demand that he be relieved of his assignment: ANYHOW TO AVOID REPETITION [ON] MORE HARSH REPORTS TO COME. BETTER ARRANGE MY RELIEVER [AND] C/O BUSTILLO RELIEVER ALSO. UPON ARR NEXT USA LOADING PORT FOR THEIR SATISFACTION. Respondents met the challenge and accepted petitioner’s resignation. Petitioner even appeared resigned to his fate by stating: HV NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT YR DECISION. TKS ANYHOW FOR RELIEVING ME IN NEXT CONVENIENT PORT WILL EASE THE BURDEN THAT I HV FELT ONBOARD. REST ASSURE VSL WILL BE TURNED OVER PROPERLY TO INCOMING MASTER. The statements of petitioner were simple and straightforward. There is no merit to his claim that he was forced to resign due to extreme pressure. Only two (2) days had elapsed from the time petitioner received a copy of the complaint from the owners of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55455 5/9