Philippine Wireless Inc Vs NLRC

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 112963. July 20, 1999.]
PHILIPPINE WIRELESS INC. (Pocketbell) and/or JOSE LUIS

SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
GOLDWIN LUCILA, Respondents.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
This petition for certiorari is to set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission 1 on the ground that it was rendered with grave abuse of its discretion.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, finding the appeal to be meritorious the decision appealed from is hereby
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and a new one ENTERED, declaring that the complainant
has been constructively dismissed and ordering the respondent to pay him backwages
from his dismissal on December 28, 1990 up to the date of the promulgation of this
Resolution. And in lieu of reinstatement, respondent is likewise hereby ordered to pay
complainant his separation pay at the rate of one (1) month pay for every year of
service.
No Cost.
SO ORDERED." cralaw virtua1aw library
"(s/t) EDNA BONITO-PEREZ
"Presiding Commissioner" 2
The facts are as follows: chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
On January 8, 1976, petitioner Philippine Wireless Inc. hired respondent Goldwin Lucila
as operator/encoder. On January 7, 1979, he was promoted as Head Technical and
Maintenance Department of the Engineering Department. On September 11, 1987, he
was promoted as Supervisor, Technical Services of the same department. On October
1, 1990, he was again promoted as Superintendent, Project Management.
On December 28, 1990, he tendered his resignation.
On December 3, 1991, he filed with the Arbitration Branch, National Labor Relations
Commission, a complaint for illegal/constructive dismissal. He alleged that he was
constructively dismissed inasmuch as his promotion from Supervisor, Technical Services
to Superintendent, Project Management is demeaning, illusory and humiliating. The
basis of his allegation was the fact that he was not given any secretary, assistant
and/or subordinates.
On June 29, 1992, Labor Arbiter Benigno Villarente Jr. rendered a decision declaring
that respondent actually resigned and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. 3 chanrobles law library
On June 15, 1993, public respondent NLRC reversed the findings of the labor arbiter,
and ordered respondent’s reinstatement with back wages or separation pay.
On August 27, 1993 petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the National
Labor Relations Commission denied for lack of merit in a resolution dated November 16,
1993.
Hence, this petition.
At issue is whether or not petitioner was constructively dismissed from the petitioner’s
employment.
We find the petition meritorious.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The Court has held that constructive dismissal is "an involuntary resignation resorted to
when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when
there is a demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee." 4 In this
particular case, respondent voluntarily resigned from his employment. He was not
pressured into resigning.
Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of an employee who "finds himself in a

situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his
employment." 5
Respondent considered his transfer/promotion as a demotion due to the fact that he

had no support staff to assist him in his work and whom he could supervise. There is no
demotion where there is no reduction in position, rank or salary as a result of such
transfer. 6 In fact, respondent Goldwin Lucila was promoted three (3) times from the
time he was hired until his resignation from work. chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The questioned decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission, dated June 15, 1993, is SET ASIDE. The decision of the
Labor Arbiter dated June 29, 1992, is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Facts:
The respondent was employed by the petitioner’s company, Philippine Wireless Inc. as
operator/enconder he was then promoted to as Head Technical of the Engineering Dept. Then to
Supervisor and finally to Superintendent.
However, he filed his resignation and filed a complaint with the LA for illegal dismissal. He alleged that
his promotion from Supervisor to Superintendent was demeaning, illusory and humiliating because he
was not given any secretary or assistant.
The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Stating that the respondent voluntarily resigned,
hence, he was not illegally dismissed.
The respondent then appealed to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the LA.
This prompted the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC.
Hence, the present petition.
Issue:
1. Whether the respondent’s promotion/transfer was considered as demotion due to the fact that
he has had no support staff to assist him and whom he could supervise.
Ruling:
1. The court ruled that the respondent promotion/transfer was not a demotion. The court said
that there is no demotion when there is no reduction in position, rank or salary as a result of
such transfer. In fact, the respondent was promoted three times from the time he was hired
until his resignation.

Philippine Wireless Inc Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Wireless Inc Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Wireless Inc Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112963. July 20, 1999.]

PHILIPPINE WIRELESS INC. (Pocketbell) and/or JOSE LUIS

SO ORDERED." cralaw virtua1aw library

"(s/t) EDNA BONITO-PEREZ

The facts are as follows: chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

On December 28, 1990, he tendered his resignation.

Hence, this petition.

We find the petition meritorious.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of an employee who "finds himself in a

Respondent considered his transfer/promotion as a demotion due to the fact that he

Hence, the present petition.

You might also like