Case Digest (G.R. No. 155421)
Facts:
Elmer M. Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 07, 2004, First Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review under Rule 45 challenges the June 14, 2002 Decision and the September 25, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 68030.Elmer M. Mendoza (petitioner) was an appraiser at the Rural Bank of Lucban, Inc. (respondent). On April 25, 1999 the bank's Board adopted Board Resolutions Nos. 99-52 and 99-53 directing a reshuffle of branch personnel “to familiarize bank employees with the various phases of bank operations and further strengthen the existing internal control system.” Board Res. No. 99-53 listed petitioner’s reassignment from Appraiser to Clerk–Meralco Collection, effective May 1, 1999, without change in compensation and other benefits. The bank chairman instructed the branch manager to implement the reshuffle.
Petitioner protested by letter (received April 25, 1999), claiming the reassignment was a demotion and harassment designed to precipitate his termination. The chairman replied (May 10, 1999) that no downgrade in compensation was intended, that management prerogative authorized reshuffles, and that an employee could retain his position title if formally requested. Petitioner later applied for sick leaves (June 7 and June 21, 1999).
While on his second leave, petitioner filed on June 24, 1999 a complaint before Arbitration Branch No. IV of the NLRC for illegal dismissal, underpayment, separation pay and damages (NLRC Case SRAB-IV-6-5862-99-Q). The labor arbiter (Decision dated June 14, 2000) ruled for petitioner, declaring respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement and monetary awards (backwages, separation pay if reinstatement impossible, bonuses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees).
On appeal the NLRC reversed by Resolution dated July 18, 2001, concluding there was no bad faith or constructive dismissal: the reshuffle applied to several employees, did not diminish salary or benefits, and served legitimate management objectives. The NLRC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA challenging the NLRC Resolution.
The CA (Fifteenth Division) affirmed the NLRC in a Decision dated June 14, 2002, finding petitioner’s allegations unsubstantiated and that his absence from the payroll for July 1–15, 1999 reflected th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner voluntarily separate from service or abandon his job when he filed his complaint for constructive (and illegal) dismissal?
- Was the reshuffling of respondent’s employees done in good faith and not a constructive dismissal despite petitioner’s admitted change in rank?
- Is the ruling in Ruben Serrano v. NLRC applicable to this case?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s monetary claims (damages and unpaid salaries for July 1–30, 1999) even though respondent did not dispute them?
- Are the proceedings before the NLRC and the CA void because respondent’s N...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)