Case Digest (G.R. No. 227718)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 227718)
Facts:
Peter Angelo N. Lagamayo v. Cullinan Group, Inc., and Rafael M. Florencio, G.R. No. 227718, November 11, 2021, Supreme Court First Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review under Rule 45 assails the Decision (Jan. 29, 2016) and Resolution (Oct. 17, 2016) of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 127383.Petitioner was hired by Cullinan Group, Inc. (CGI) as a workshop supervisor on April 2, 2007; Rafael M. Florencio was CGI’s president. In 2011 CGI received reports of workshop violations (gambling, drinking, theft of small amounts of gold) allegedly occurring under petitioner’s supervision. On February 8, 2011 petitioner was placed under preventive suspension; a Notice to Explain dated February 11, 2011 charged him with breach of trust and confidence, dishonesty, improper conduct and negligence. He submitted a written denial (Feb. 18, 2011) and attended a March 1, 2011 hearing where CGI informed him he was found guilty but that he could resign to keep his record clean; CGI declined to pay separation pay because it considered the offenses proven. Petitioner wrote on March 11, 2011 that if allowed to resign he expected unpaid wages, fringe benefits and separation pay; he later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages and separation pay on July 11, 2011.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s illegal dismissal complaint (Feb. 29, 2012). The NLRC affirmed the dismissal but modified the award to grant petitioner unpaid wages and benefits from March 11, 2011 to July 11, 2011 totaling P96,000 (Decision July 31, 2012); its denial of reconsideration was dated September 18, 2012. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s petition and affirmed the NLRC (Decision Jan. 29, 2016), but the CA’s reasoning included a finding that petitioner was constructively dismissed albeit on a basis that respondents had just cause (loss of trust and confidence). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the CA was denied (Resolution Oct. 17, 2016). He then filed the present Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was petitioner constructively dismissed from employment?
- Is petitioner entitled to reinstatement and/or separation pay and full backwages?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)