Barrientos v. PLDT Employees Credit Cooperative
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on February 12, 2018, which affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint for constructive dismissal and illegal suspension filed by Danilo L. Barrientos against PLDT Employees Credit Cooperative and its officers. The Supreme Court held that Barrientos' preventive suspension was not arbitrary and had a valid reason, as he withheld and belatedly released a subject check to its payee. Barrientos' voluntary resignation and execution of a receipt, release, and quitclaim further supported the dismissal of his complaint. The factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed those of the Labor Arbiter, were respected and considered binding by the Supreme Court.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232587. February 12, 2018.]
DANILO L. BARRIENTOS, petitioner, vs.PLDT EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE [PECCI], GERARDO M. RODRIGUEZ, PEDRO N. PINLAC, ALEXANDER M. CASAS, AND HERMOGENES M. ESTOLANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 February 2018which reads as follows: cSEDTC
"G.R. No. 232587 (Danilo L. Barrientos v. PLDT Employees Credit Cooperative [PECCI], Gerardo M. Rodriguez, Pedro N. Pinlac, Alexander M. Casas, and Hermogenes M. Estolano)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 13, 2017 Decision 1 and June 30, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141488 for failure of petitioner Danilo L. Barrientos (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of his complaint for Constructive Dismissal and Illegal Suspension against respondents PLDT Employees Credit Cooperative, Gerardo M. Rodriguez, Pedro N. Pinlac, Alexander M. Casas, and Hermogenes M. Estolano (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's preventive suspension did not amount to constructive dismissal as it was not arbitrary and not without a valid reason, considering the withholding and belated release of the subject check to its payee. Besides, petitioner voluntarily tendered his resignation 3 and executed a Receipt, Release and Quitclaim. 4 As a General Manager, he was not at a disadvantage and could not have been misled into signing the same. It is settled that "constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting or cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; or when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment." 5 None of these conditions are present in the instant case.
Moreover, factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, when sufficiently supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality, and are considered binding on this Court. 6
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official business. REYES, JR., J., recused himself from the case for having concurred in the assailed Court of Appeals decision and resolution. DEL CASTILLO, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated January 8, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-33. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza (now Presiding Justice of the CA) with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
2.Id. at 22-23.
3.Id. at 175.
4.Id. at 179-180.
5. See Doble, Jr. v. ABB, INC./NITIN DESAI, G.R. No. 215627, June 5, 2017, citing Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., 701 Phil. 612, 638-639 (2013).
6.Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Nagrama, Jr., 571 Phil. 281, 300 (2008); citations omitted.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU