FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 241456-57. October 3, 2018.]
NOEL BULAONG DELA CRUZ, petitioner,vs. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC. (DUSIT THANI MANILA), CAROL SEVILLA, GILBERT UY, SALVADOR CORTEZ, JR. AND ALEX WILLATS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 3, 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 241456-57 — Noel Bulaong Dela Cruz, Petitioner v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. (Dusit Thani Manila), Carol Sevilla, Gilbert Uy, Salvador Cortez, Jr. and Alex Willats, Respondents.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its February 26, 2018 Consolidated Decision and its August 8, 2018 Consolidated Resolution in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 143002 and 143469 so as to justify the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. HEITAD
A careful consideration of the Petition indicates that petitioner failed to show any cogent reason why the actions of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the CA, which had passed upon the same issues raised in the present Petition, should be reversed. Indeed, there is no showing at all why the decisions of these three agencies were contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence.
In fact, this Court is not prepared to take issues with uniform findings of the three tribunals that petitioner's transfer did not amount to constructive dismissal; that petitioner's suspension and eventual termination from employment were valid; and that petitioner was not entitled to his monetary claims.
As aptly found by the Labor Arbiter, with whose finding by the NLRC and CA agreed, petitioner was not constructively dismissed from his employment as the record is bereft of any indication that there were acts or patterns of discrimination directed against petitioner or any harsh or unfavorable conditions set by respondents. Indeed, respondents' act of transferring petitioner to another work assignment after the former receive reports that petitioner, as Chief Airport Representative, was engaging in activities at the airport that tended to be in conflict with the interest of the company, was a valid exercise of management prerogative. Besides, petitioner was transferred to a co-equal position which offered the same benefits. We accord not only respect, but even finality, to the factual findings and the evaluation of evidence of the labor tribunals, especially when these are affirmed by the CA, as in this case.
Also, the series of suspensions and eventual dismissal meted out to petitioner were justified. Note that petitioner never denied committing the numerous infractions imputed against him but merely justified his clear defiance of company rules. As correctly ruled by the CA, there was valid basis for petitioner's suspension. We also find no error in the rulings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA that petitioner's series of infractions constituted serious misconduct, a sufficient ground for termination. In Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company, 1 we held that a series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct.
As to the charge of unfair labor practice, we likewise find no cogent reason to overturn the uniform findings of the labor tribunals that there was neither sufficient allegation nor competent, clear and convincing evidence to prove that respondents violated the worker's right to self-organization. aScITE
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed February 26, 2018 Consolidated Decision and August 8, 2018 Consolidated Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 143002 and 143469.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J.,on official travel.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 623 Phil. 416, 423 (2009).