FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202737. June 6, 2019.]
ARIANNA K. SANTOS, RUTH VILLENA, JOCELYN CABIAG, NORMA MANZANO, GLORIA BERSOLA, MARILOU RAMOS, JOCELYN ABELLA AND SUSAN WONG, petitioners, vs.U-NEED SUPERMART, INC., REPRESENTED BY TERESITA LEE AND MA. IMELDA LEE-SANTIAGO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202737 (ARIANNA K. SANTOS, RUTH VILLENA, JOCELYN CABIAG, NORMA MANZANO, GLORIA BERSOLA, MARILOU RAMOS, JOCELYN ABELLA and SUSAN WONG, Petitioners, v. U-NEED SUPERMART, INC., represented by TERESITA LEE and MA. IMELDA LEE-SANTIAGO, Respondents.) — We DENY the petition by the petitioners for failure to prove that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in rendering its February 9, 2012 decision, 1 whereby the CA reversed and set aside the decision and resolution respectively promulgated by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on May 21, 2009 and August 28, 2009, and held that herein respondent did not unlawfully dismiss them from their employment.
In cases of illegal dismissal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal before the employer comes under the duty to discharge its burden to prove that it was not guilty of illegal dismissal. In the case of dismissal of the employee the proof should be clear, positive and convincing. 2 HTcADC
Here, We find that the petitioners failed to establish the fact of their dismissal. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the holding of the CA that petitioner Arianna Santos' repeated refusal to report back to work despite the repeated reminders coming from the respondent negated her claim of unlawful termination. On the other hand, there cannot be any valid claim of illegal dismissal in the absence of employer-employee relationship as in the case of petitioners Ruth Villena, et al., especially since after receiving their separation pay, the CA noted that they voluntarily executed their respective resignation letters and indicated therein the company which they were employed. As correctly held by the CA, their submission of a resignation letter signified that they had full knowledge of their actual employment with the other business previously operated by the deceased Conrado Romero.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on February 9, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 111570. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 44-64; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
2.Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 207888, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 570, 579.