Facts:
Best Wear Garments and/or Warren Pardilla (hereafter petitioner) operated a garments manufacturing business and employed
Adelaida B. De Lemos and
Cecile M. Ocubillo as piece-rate sewers, hired on October 27, 1993 and July 12, 1994, respectively. In August 2003 both were reassigned to different operations which, they alleged, reduced their earnings; De Lemos claimed the reassignment followed her refusal to render overtime until 7:00 p.m., while Ocubillo attributed frequent absences to family illness and asserted that subsequent assignments left her without available machines to work on certain days. De Lemos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on May 20, 2004 and Ocubillo filed a similar complaint on June 10, 2004, seeking backwages, separation pay and other benefits. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dated September 5, 2005 finding constructive, hence illegal, dismissal and awarding each complainant separation pay of one-month salary per year of service and backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter in its Decision dated August 28, 2007, concluding there was no dismissal, that the transfers fell within management prerogative given the piece-rate nature of the work and the contractual requirements of petitioners' clients, and directing the complainants to report back to work without backwages. The Court of Appeals (CA), by Decision dated February 24, 2009, reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter, finding the transfers unreasonable and tantamount to
constructive dismissal; the CA denied reconsideration on February 10, 2010. Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 45; the Supreme Court promulgated its decision on December 5, 2012.
Issues:
Was the reassignment of
Adelaida B. De Lemos and
Cecile M. Ocubillo in August 2003 tantamount to
constructive dismissal? Was there abandonment or resignation by the complainants that would negate a finding of dismissal? Are the complainants entitled to
backwages and separation pay as a consequence of the alleged dismissal?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: