Case Digest (G.R. No. 143998)
Facts:
Mercury Drug Corporation v. Araceli Domingo, G.R. No. 143998, April 29, 2006, the Supreme Court, decision penned by Chico‑Nazario, J. This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure challenging the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution in CA‑G.R. SP No. 49227.The respondent, Araceli Domingo, began working for Mercury Drug Corporation on April 18, 1977, and rose to the position of cashier at the Cubao‑Romulo branch from July 1, 1985 until a preventive suspension on June 10, 1992. On June 9, 1992 she was summoned to the main office, confronted by supervisors and accused by the Assistant Vice‑President for Chainstore Operations of divulging confidential information; she and co‑employee Eladio Sioson were placed on preventive suspension on June 10, 1992. A Special Investigating Committee composed of rank‑and‑file and managerial personnel was created to investigate the allegations.
Domingo and Sioson filed complaints on July 6, 1992 with the NLRC‑NCR (NLRC NCR 00‑07‑03639‑92) for illegal preventive suspension, constructive dismissal, and nonpayment of wages. While the investigation was pending the company informed them on July 10, 1992 that they could start receiving salaries though the suspension would remain in effect until the committee reported. The Special Investigating Committee later cleared both employees; Sioson accepted reassignment to another branch and abandoned his complaint, but Domingo refused reassignment to Divisoria or Baclaran, insisting on reinstatement to her former post at Cubao‑Romulo.
The Labor Arbiter (October 30, 1996) ruled the preventive suspension illegal, held the suspension in perpetuity constituted constructive dismissal, and ordered reinstatement to the former cashier post with full backwages, rice subsidies, unpaid anniversary bonuses, moral and exemplary damages (P250,000 total), and attorney’s fees. The employer appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, Third Division (April 30, 1998), found the preventive suspension illegal but modified the Labor Arbiter by deleting the balance of backwages, other benefits, moral/exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, and directed that the complainant be assigned as cashier in a different branch at her option without loss of seniority rights and benefits. Motions for reconsideration were denied by the NLRC (June–July 1998).
Domingo petitioned the Court of Appeals, which on March 22, 2000 set aside and reversed the NLRC, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications and ordered reinstatement with full backwages (less payroll reinstatement already received), rice subsidy and unpaid anniversary bonuses, awarded moral damages P50,000 and exemplary damages P50,000, and attorney’s fees equivalent to the total award for backwages. The Court of Appeals’ denial of reconsideration was noted, and Mercury Drug filed this Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court petitioner framed multiple alleged errors but essenti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition properly resolved on certiorari (procedural)?
- Whether the petitioner’s order to transfer respondent from the Cubao‑Romulo branch to Divisoria or Baclaran was a valid exercise of management prerogative and did not amount to constructive dismissal?
- Whether respondent was justified in rejecting the new assignment?
- Whether the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, and the alternative relief of separation pay if rein...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)