EDGAR D. MORDENO, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [PALEA], GERARDO RIVERA, AMBROSIO PALAD, ALNEM PRETENCIO AND EUGENE SORIANO, respondents.
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in its First Division. The case concerns Edgar D. Mordeno's petition for review on certiorari against the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) and several individuals. Mordeno claimed that he was constructively dismissed from his employment, but the Court found no evidence to support his claim. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which held that Mordeno was not constructively dismissed and that he failed to prove that PALEA prevented him from returning to work. The Court found that Mordeno stopped reporting for work without any valid reason and that there was intent to sever the employer-employee relationship on his part.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237905. June 11, 2018.]
EDGAR D. MORDENO, petitioner,vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [PALEA], GERARDO RIVERA, AMBROSIO PALAD, ALNEM PRETENCIO AND EUGENE SORIANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 11, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 237905 — Edgar D. Mordeno v. Philippine Airlines Employees Association [PALEA], Gerardo Rivera, Ambrosio Palad, Alnem Pretencio and Eugene Soriano
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the Petition for Review on Certiorari of the September 13, 2017 Decision and February 26, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141893, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the finding of the CA that petitioner was not constructively dismissed from his employment as the record is bereft of any indication that petitioner was prevented from returning to work. Other than his unsubstantiated allegation, no evidence was proffered by petitioner to show that respondents failed to offer him any work assignment when he requested to resume his employment in December 2013. On the other hand, records at hand revealed that petitioner stopped reporting for work without any valid explanation. Both the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the CA found that there was intent to sever the employer-employee relationship on the part of petitioner. We see no reason to overturn the factual finding of the NLRC, which was affirmed by the CA, and supported by the evidence on record.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed September 13, 2017 Decision and February 26, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141893.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Tijam, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU