SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211103. March 10, 2014.]
UNIVERSAL STOREFRONT SERVICES CORPORATION [USSC, FORMERLY THE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. OR RCPI], petitioner, vs. SATURNINA N. NAYAL AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 March 2014which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 211103 (Universal Storefront Services Corporation [USSC, formerly the Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. or RCPI] v. Saturnina N. Nayal and the National Labor Relations Commission).
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the July 3, 2013 Decision 1 and January 22, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02745-MIN for failure of Universal Storefront Services Corporation (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that Saturnina N. Nayal (private respondent) was constructively dismissed from service.
As correctly held by the CA, constructive dismissal exists where there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, like an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other benefits. 3 In this case, the three-year salary deduction imposed by petitioner as a pre-requisite to private respondent's return to work constitutes a diminution in her pay and other benefits which would thus render her continued employment unreasonable and unlikely. HcTDSA
Moreover, the petition suffers from procedural defect in that petitioner failed to attach copies of the assailed Labor Arbiter Decision and the NLRC Resolutions which are material parts of the record required under Section 4 (d), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 62-76. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, concurring.
2. Id. at 59-60.
3. Globe Telecom, Inc. v. Florendo-Flores, 438 Phil. 756, 766 (2002). (Citation omitted)