Short answer. No. Labor Code Article 285 only lets an employer claim damages when an employee resigns without just cause and skips the required one-month notice. If you resign for one of the law's own just causes, you may end the relationship without serving any notice at all, so that basis for liability does not apply.
What the law says
The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.
Labor Code, Article 285 — Resignation By The Employee. Read the full provision →
What the law says
An employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just causes: Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employee; Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representative; Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing.
Labor Code, Article 285 — Resignation By The Employee. Read the full provision →
Where the liability for damages actually comes from
Article 285 lets an employee terminate employment without just cause by serving written notice at least one month in advance. The liability clause is tied specifically to skipping that notice: the employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages. This is a consequence of leaving without the required notice period in an ordinary resignation, not a general penalty for resigning early as such.
Just-cause resignation works on a different track
The article then sets out a separate path: an employee may put an end to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just causes: serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employee; inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representative; commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and other causes analogous to any of the foregoing. Where one of these applies, no notice is required in the first place.
Why the damages clause does not reach this situation
The liability for damages in Article 285 attaches to failing to give notice when notice was owed. When you resign under one of the just causes the article lists, notice was never required, so there is no unmet notice obligation for the employer to point to under this provision. The article does not create a separate ground for holding you liable simply because you left before some other date the employer might have preferred.
What matters if your employer disputes this
Everything turns on whether your situation genuinely fits one of the listed causes, or something the law would treat as analogous to them. Keep whatever documents, messages or records show what happened to you and when, since that is what would establish the just cause if your employer challenges your resignation. Bring that record to a lawyer before assuming either that you owe nothing or that you do.