4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly as master. While it is true that his resignation was an offshoot of the complaint of the shipowners but the latter were merely requesting the complainant and the chief officers to improve in their performance. The dismissal aspect was not dismissed at all. It was complainant who brought out the idea and which was accepted by the shipowner as shown in the telefax message dated September 20, 1995 x x X. This x x x Commission finds the reply dated September 21, 1995 of the complainant misleading. His statement that "HV no choice but to accept yr Decision," is not accurate inasmuch as it was he who opted to be relieved at the next loading port. His request which was favorably acted upon by the respondents certainly negates his claims that he was illegally dismissed. [19] The rule that filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with resignation does not hold true in this case. The filing of the complaint one year after his alleged termination, coupled with the clear tenor or his resignation letter should be taken to mean that petitioner's filing or the illegal dismissal case was a mere afterthought. In fine, we do not find any persuasive or cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the appellate court. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 14 August 2006 Decision and the 26 October 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals 111 CA-G.R. SP No. 76756 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen,* JJ., concur. * Per Special Order No. 1408 dated 15 January 2013. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal with Associate Justices Eliezer R. De Los Santos and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring. Rollo. pp. 24-33. [2] See Contract of Employment. CA rollo, p. 67. [3] Id. at 206. [4] Id. at 207. [5] Id. at 209. [6] Id. at 210. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55455 7/9