SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243755. March 18, 2019.]
DOMINGO C. VALENZUELA, JR., petitioner,vs. KAIZEN SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION AND ERIC M. RESPICIO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 March 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243755 (Domingo C. Valenzuela, Jr. v. Kaizen Security Agency Corporation and Eric M. Respicio)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 27, 2018 2 and December 7, 2018 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 156421 for failure of petitioner Domingo C. Valenzuela, Jr. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the rulings of the Labor Arbiter 4 and the National Labor Relations Commission 5 (Labor Tribunals).
As correctly ruled by the CA, the Labor Tribunals did not gravely abuse their discretion in dismissing petitioner's complaint 6 for constructive dismissal and money claims against respondents Kaizen Security Agency Corporation and its President, Eric M. Respicio (respondents), as the evidence on record show that: (a) petitioner was never placed on floating status for more than six (6) months 7 as respondents gave him a posting which he, however, failed to report to; 8 and (b) respondents duly paid petitioner his money claims. 9 It is settled that absent any of the recognized exceptions, factual findings of the labor tribunals, as affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Court, 10 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-42.
2.Id. at 48-54. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with Associate Justices Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3.Id. at 56-58.
4. See Decision dated September 28, 2017, penned by Labor Arbiter Marita V. Padolina; id. at 300-311.
5. See Decision dated February 5, 2018, penned by Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus with Presiding Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and Dominador B. Medroso, Jr., concurring; id. at 103-114.
6.Id. at 126-127.
7. Unduly placing a security guard on "off-detail" or "floating" status for more than six (6) months constitutes constructive dismissal. (See Quillopa v. Quality Guards Services and Investigation Agency, 774 Phil. 198, 204-205 [2015].)
8. See rollo, pp. 49-50.
9. Grave abuse of discretion may only be ascribed to the findings of the NLRC tribunals if the same are not supported by substantial evidence. See Quillopa v. Quality Guards Services and Investigation Agency, id. at 207. See also rollo, pp. 303-304.
10. See Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, 804 Phil. 492, 504 (2017).