SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245942. January 22, 2020.]
PRIMEPOWER MANPOWER SERVICES, petitioner, vs.MARIVIC A. MONDEJAR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 January 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245942 (Primepower Manpower Services v. Marivic A. Mondejar). — The Court resolves to NOTE: (a) the letter dated August 6, 2019 of Atty. Maria Ricasion B. Tugade, Director II, Research and Legal Department, Department of Labor and Employment, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Quezon City, elevating the entire record of NLRC RAB-X-08-00612-2016, MAC No. 04-014904-2017; (b) the letter dated July 29, 2019 of Ms. Nelsie D. Loja, Chief, Archives Section, Court of Appeals (CA)-Mindanao Station, Cagayan De Oro City, forwarding the CA rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. 08555-MIN; and (c) the comment on the petition for review on certiorari dated July 31, 2019 of respondent Marivic A. Mondejar (respondent), all in compliance with the Resolution dated June 3, 2019. DETACa
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the October 18, 2018 Decision 2 and the March 5, 2019 Resolution 3 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 08555-MIN for failure of petitioner Primepower Manpower Services (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the NLRC ruling 4 that respondent was constructively dismissed by petitioner, and thus entitling her to claims for backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees. However, in light of prevailing jurisprudence, 5 the Court deems it proper to impose legal interest on the monetary awards due to respondent at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's act of placing respondent on floating status after being relieved as a room attendant in a client's workplace, without reassigning her to a new post or recalling her back to work within six (6) months thereafter constituted constructive dismissal, entitling her to backwages and separation pay. 6 The award of respondent's proportionate 13th month pay is also sustained for failure of petitioner to prove payment of the same. 7 Likewise, the award of attorney's fees is in order, considering that respondent was forced to litigate, and thus, incurred expenses to protect her rights and interest. 8 HEITAD
SO ORDERED. (Reyes, A., Jr. and Hernando, JJ., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-17.
2.Id. at 24-34. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3.Id. at 35-37.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See Pelagio v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 231773, March 11, 2019, citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).
6.Malig-on v. Equitable General Services, Inc., 636 Phil. 330, 336 (2010). See also rollo, pp. 31-32.
7. See Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera, Jr., G.R. No. 202613, November 8, 2017, 844 SCRA 416, 439.
8.Alva v. High Capacity Security Force, Inc., G.R. No. 203328, November 8, 2017, 844 SCRA 444, 459.