Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 188169 : March 21, 2012] NIÑA JEWELRY MANUFACTURING OF METAL ARTS, INC. AND ELISEA B. ABELLA v. MADELINE C. MONTECILLO AND LIZA M. TRINIDAD :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 March 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 188169 (Ni�a Jewelry Manufacturing of Metal Arts, Inc. and Elisea B. Abella v. Madeline C. Montecillo and Liza M. Trinidad).  - For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration^[1] filed by respondents Madeline Montecillo and Liza Trinidad to assail the Decision^[2]  previously rendered by the Court on November 28, 2011. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: 

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA dated January 9, 2009 and May 26, 2009, respectively, are REVERSED only in so far as they declared that the respondents were constructively dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and payment of backwages, allowances and benefits. However, the CA's ruling that the petitioners' imposition of its new policy upon the respondents lacks legal basis, stands. 

SO ORDERED.^[3]

The respondents now allege that in rendering the November 28, 2011 Decision, we overlooked the following:

(A) THAT THE CA DID NOT RE-EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. IT SIMPLY MADE A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW WHEN IT DECLARED THE REQUIREMENT OF CASH BOND ILLEGAL IN CONTRAST WITH THE UNIFORM FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC. 

(B) THAT ON THE BASIS OF ITS FINDING THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF CASH BOND IS ILLEGAL, THE CA SIMPLY MADE ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND APPLIED ITS FINDING BY HOLDING THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS TANTAMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL. 

(C) LIKEWISE, THE CA, BASED ON ITS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE LAWS, CORRECTLY RULED THAT THERE WAS NO ABANDONMENT.^[4]

In support of the Motion for Reconsideration, the respondents initially point out that in the November 28, 2011 Decision, we affirmed the Court of Appeals� (CA) ruling that the imposition of cash deposits on the workers of petitioner Ni�a Jewelry Manufacturing of Metal Arts, Inc. (Nina Jewelry) was illegal. Prescinding therefrom, the respondents argue that the CA did not re-evaluate the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but merely made a correct legal interpretation of the facts surrounding the case. The respondents aver that since the policy of posting cash deposits without complying with requisites was illegal, its imposition was tantamount to constructive dismissal. Further, the pitiful economic plight of the respondents and the immediate filing of their complaints negate the probability that they abandoned their employment with Ni�a Jewelry. By way of a new argument, the respondents, posit that if indeed they abandoned their employment, still, Ni�a Jewelry failed to follow the proper process of termination, specifically relative to the two-notice rule.

We find the respondents' arguments tenuous.

The LA and the NLRC both found that the respondents were not illegally dismissed. The CA could not have taken the opposite stance had it not resorted to a re-evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties. Besides, even if we found that the CA re-evaluated the parties' evidence, which ordinarily is beyond the province of certiorari, we gave due course to the petition under Rule 45 filed before us anyway and resolved the same on the merits in the interest of substantial justice.

Further, there is no merit in the respondents� claim that Ni�a Jewelry failed to comply with the two-notice rule in removing them from employment on the ground of abandonment. It is true that the employer generally has the burden of proof to establish the validity of a dismissal. However, if the employer denies the fact of dismissal, the burden to prove that dismissal indeed occurred shifts to the employee. In the instant petition, the respondents relied on presumptions and bare and uncorroborated allegations in their attempt to establish that they were dismissed. The respondents then expect Ni�a Jewelry to prove that there was compliance with the two-notice rule. We find that the respondents are begging the question. Ni�a Jewelry could not have complied with the two-notice rule because in the first place, the respondents were not dismissed at all. Just a day or two after the policy to post cash deposits was imposed, the respondents stopped reporting for work and filed their complaints for illegal dismissal.cralaw

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the respondents' Motion for Reconsideration to this Court's November 28, 2011 Decision is DENIED WITH FINALITY. Ni�a Jewelry's Opposition^[5] to the respondents' Motion for Reconsideration is NOTED.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 265-278.

^[2] Id. at 241-261. 

^[3] Id. at 260. 

^[4] Id. at 266. 

^[5] Id. at 280-287.