Case Digest (G.R. No. 171392)
Facts:
This is Ruperto Suldao v. Cimech System Construction, Inc. and Engr. Rodolfo S. Labucay, G.R. No. 171392, promulgated October 30, 2006, decided by the Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari assails the June 23, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 83963 and the January 10, 2006 Resolution denying reconsideration; the Court of Appeals had reversed the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Resolution dated February 27, 2004 in NLRC CA No. 036963‑03, which itself had affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s August 5, 2003 Decision finding constructive dismissal.Respondent Cimech System Construction, Inc. employed petitioner Ruperto Suldao on August 31, 2001 as a machinist initially on a five‑month contract and thereafter as a permanent employee. Petitioner alleged that, because of a dearth of projects, he was ordered to take leaves of absence in early November 2002, was asked to request a field transfer, and was thereafter repeatedly prevented from entering the company premises by security guards beginning November 17 and November 21, 2002. He filed a complaint for constructive dismissal on December 20, 2002.
Respondent company claimed it temporarily transferred petitioner to its fabrication department for lack of work in the machine shop; petitioner allegedly refused the transfer, behaved arrogantly, was led away by a guard and then suspended for six days. Petitioner later accepted the transfer but worked only one day; disputes over 13th month pay, salary deposit and clearances followed, after which petitioner pursued the labor complaint.
Labor Arbiter Melquiades Sol D. Del Rosario rendered a decision on August 5, 2003 finding petitioner constructively and illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with backwages and separation pay. The NLRC affirmed by Resolution dated February 27, 2004. Respondent sought relief in the Court of Appeals by certiorari; the Court of Appeals (Decision penned by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas) granted the petition and on June 23, 2005 reversed the NLRC and di...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC’s findings that petitioner was constructively dismissed?
- If petitioner was constructively dismissed, can Engr. Rodolfo S. Labucay be held personally liable toge...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)