B.) INDIVIDUAL OR PERSONAL LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT ATHENA INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., REPRESENTED BY LORENZA CHING; a.) Remittance of illegal placement fee …………………………. P 99,110.00. SO ORDERED.6 On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It found that respondent was not at all dismissed, much less illegally. Respondent seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in its second resolution. Undaunted, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC in its ruling that there was no violation of the contract of employment by petitioner and in holding that respondent was not illegally dismissed. The Court of Appeals held that Wei Yu Hsien violated the contract of employment when respondent was made to work as hydraulic installer/repairer, not as caretaker. The appellate court concluded that the supposed voluntary resignation of respondent was inconsistent with his immediate demand for refund of the placement fee upon his arrival in the Philippines; his filing of an administrative case before the POEA Adjudication Office; and his subsequent filing of the complaint with the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals decreed: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED reversing the questioned resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City and REINSTATING the decision of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. Sub-RAB-09-OFW-(LB)-02-00002-99. SO ORDERED.7 Hence, the instant appeal, raising the following issues: 1. Did the respondent voluntarily resign or was he illegally dismissed? 2. Assuming that the respondent was illegally dismissed, was it proper for the Court of Appeals to affirm in toto the monetary awards in the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, especially: (a) the award of his supposed salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract, i.e., NT$348,480.00 and (b) the award of "remittance of placement fee" in the amount of P99,110.00?8 Anent the first issue, petitioner insists that respondent was not illegally dismissed but voluntarily resigned; that respondent failed to prove that he was made to work as hydraulic installer/repairer instead of a caretaker; and that the documents he adduced were self-serving and immaterial. Petitioner further contends that although the resignation of respondent was in a pre-printed form, it did not mean his resignation was involuntary. The requirement that the employer has the burden of proof that the employee was illegally dismissed is, says petitioner, applicable only when the fact of dismissal is established. Petitioner submits that, in this case, respondent bore the burden of proving that his resignation was involuntary. For his part, respondent avers that he did not resign voluntarily but, he was asked to sign a letter of resignation. Furthermore, he avers that petitioner did not explain why he was unqualified. Neither was he informed of any qualifications needed for the job prior to his deployment, as mandated by Article 2819 of the Labor Code. Respondent points out that the allegation he resigned voluntarily is belied by petitioner’s own admission in its position paper that he was, in fact, found unfit for the job. He maintains that his purported resignation was obviously inconsistent with his filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner. After a thorough consideration of the submissions of the parties, we find no persuasive grounds nor substantial basis to reverse the decision and the resolution of the appellate court. An employee voluntarily resigns when he finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service; thus, he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. 10 Records show that upon his repatriation from Taiwan, respondent immediately went to petitioner’s office and confronted its representative, Lorenza Ching, about the assignment given to him which was contrary to the agreed position of caretaker, for which he specifically applied. He demanded that he be reimbursed the P30,000 he paid as downpayment. When refused, he lodged a complaint with the POEA. He also immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before Labor Arbiter Cresencio R. Iniego, upon his arrival in his hometown, indicating that respondent did not voluntarily resign, but was forced to resign, which was tantamount to a dismissal.11 Petitioner did not refute respondent’s contentions regarding these incidents. Further, it failed to prove the legality of the dismissal, despite the fact that the burden of proof lies on the employment and recruitment agency. Thus, the presumption stands to the effect that respondent was illegally dismissed by his employer. Even assuming respondent was a mere probationary employee as claimed by petitioner, respondent could only be terminated for a pertinent and just cause, such as when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards of employment made known to him by his employer at the time of his engagement.12 Here, it appears that the petitioner failed to prove that, at the time of respondent’s engagement, the employer’s reasonable standards for the job were made known to respondent. Moreover, in this case, respondent was assigned to a job different from the one he applied and was hired for.