Wescare Accounting Services v. Luya

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242095. April 1, 2019.]

WESCARE ACCOUNTING SERVICES, RAFAELITO SOLANGON AND ESMERALDA S. MUNIZ, petitioners, vs.CZARINA A. LUYA, 1respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 1, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242095 — (Wescare Accounting Services, Rafaelito Solangon and Esmeralda S. Muniz v. Czarina A. Luya)

Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its February 14, 2018 Decision 2 and September 11, 2018 Resolution 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 133421. HTcADC

In constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that its conduct and action or the transfer of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity. Particularly, for a transfer not to be considered a constructive dismissal, the employer must be able to show that such transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee. Failure of the employer to overcome this burden of proof taints the employee's transfer as a constructive dismissal. 4 The CA correctly ruled that there was constructive dismissal when respondent Czarina A. Luya (respondent) was transferred to another position, which can be considered a demotion. Respondent was forced to quit because her continued employment was unreasonable, inconvenient and prejudicial to her, being relegated from Executive Secretary to Liaison Officer. Petitioners were also unable to overcome the burden of proving that their actions were based on valid grounds.

WHEREFORE, the February 14, 2018 Decision and the September 11, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133421 are hereby AFFIRMED.

The petitioners' manifestation stating that after filing their petition for review on certiorari to this Court, petitioners received a copy of compliance with motion filed by respondent Czarina A. Luya before the Court of Appeals and that this manifestation is being made pursuant to petitioners' undertaking in the verification of the petition and certification on non-forum shopping to inform this Court of any pending cases before any court of law or government agency, is NOTED; the letter dated February 12, 2019 of John Patrick D. Gatpatan, Records Officer I, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, in compliance with the Resolution dated December 5, 2018, transmitting the Court of Appeals rollo of CA G.R. SP No. 133421 consisting of 446 pages with thereto attached Court of Appeals Decision dated February 14, 2018, is NOTED; and the Court of Appeals is hereby DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. CAIHTE

SO ORDERED."Jardeleza, J., on official business.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. In the Court of Appeals Resolution dated June 19, 2017, the CA ordered Sherbeth Alcantara Balangue to substitute as petitioner (respondent herein) on account of petitioner's death; CA rollo, p. 307.

2.Rollo, pp. 31-45; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.

3.Id. at 65-68.

4.Philippine Veterans Bank v. National Labor Relations Commission (4th Division), et al., 631 Phil. 202, 210-211 (2010).