G.R. No. 172532 - Miro vs. Vda. de Erederos

Florencio B. Nedira (deceased), a taxi driver, was hired by NJ World Corporation (respondent) on September 2, 2010.
Florencio filed a complaint for constructive dismissal on October 29, 2013, against the respondent. During the pendency, he died. His wife, Emma G. Nedira, was substituted as complainant.

Emma alleged that Florencio was illegally suspended on July 16 and August 6, 2013, for untrue or undue infractions.
Upon returning to work, Florencio was placed on floating status by respondent’s manager Carlos Almarines III, contingent on payment of a P6,000 penalty, which he was unable to pay.
Emma claimed Florencio was indefinitely prevented from reporting for work, effectively amounting to constructive dismissal.
She also claimed unpaid benefits: unused service incentive leaves and 13th month pay; additionally, the return of Florencio’s bond was sought.

Respondent argued that the complaint for constructive dismissal did not survive Florencio’s death, citing Cruz v. Cruz.
They denied constructive dismissal, maintaining Florencio was an on-call taxi driver who stopped driving due to non-remittance of boundary payments.
Respondent claimed lack of documentary proof for Emma’s allegations.

The LA dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint for lack of merit.
It recognized Emma’s substitution but found her without personal knowledge of the facts.
The LA held that constructive dismissal and suspension claims were personal to Florencio and unsubstantiated.

National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Resolutions (May 29 and July 30, 2015)

The NLRC reversed the LA, finding Florencio was illegally dismissed.
It ordered respondent to pay backwages, separation pay, attorney’s fees to Florencio’s heirs.
NLRC held Florencio was an employee liable for boundary payments, subject to respondent’s control, thus dismissal without just cause was found.
Motion for reconsideration by respondent was denied.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution (December 6, 2017 and June 6, 2018)

CA annulled the NLRC resolutions, reinstated the LA’s dismissal.
CA agreed Emma was properly substituted but held that the complaint survived Florencio’s death as a property right claim.
It found no substantial evidence of constructive or illegal dismissal.
CA ruled suspension due to failure to remit boundary payments was a proper exercise of management prerogative.
Emma’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Emma assails the CA ruling, claiming illegal suspension without explanation, floating status, and improper characterization of dismissal facts.
Respondent failed to file comment after closure of office; Court deemed right to comment waived.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in annulling and setting aside the NLRC resolutions holding that Florencio was illegally dismissed and his heirs entitled to backwages and separation pay.