G.R. No. 271518 - ANDRO T. BACANI, RONALD F. CABRERA, CAMESORO T. CABATUAN, JR., JAYSON D. DELARA, RAULE R. ARGUEL, RE-ANN D. RIVERO, CRIZALDY N. WAJE, ARIEL Y. SUA, AND CHARLIE R. SEBOLINO, VS. FIBER TEXTILE MANUFACTURING CORP., SHERLY QUE (OWNER/PRESIDENT), JUDY QUE (HR MANAGER), AND JASON QUE (PL

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is SET ASIDE . A new Decision is rendered: Dismissing the Complaint for constructive dismissal; Ordering Respondent Fiber[ ][T]extile Marketing Inc. to pay Complainants Andro T. Bacani, Ronaldo F. Cabrera, Jayson Delara, Raul R. Arguel, Crizaldy N. Waje, Ariel Y. Sua and Charlie Sebolino their SILP and 13 th month pay for 2018; and Ordering Respondent Fiber[ ][T]extile Marking Inc. to pay ten (10%) percent of the amounts awarded for and as attorney's fees. SO ORDERED . [19] (Emphasis in the original) Contrary to the labor arbiter's finding, the NLRC held that the absence of notice to the DOLE Regional Office of the adoption of a flexible workweek is a mere procedural infirmity that did not affect the valid exercise of management prerogative by FMC. [20] Under Resolution [21] dated December 19, 2019, the NLRC denied reconsideration. Aggrieved, petitioners thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. Ruling of the Court of Appeals By Decision [22] dated April 28, 2023, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. It did not agree with FMC's contention that petitioners belatedly raised the issue of constructive dismissal arising from the unilateral implementation of the reduced workday given that the same is necessarily part of petitioners' averment that there was lack of notice to the DOLE on the adoption of the flexible work arrangement. [23] Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals did not find any grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in dismissing petitioners' complaint, ordaining that the notice requirement under DOLE Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009, is intended only to assist and guide employers in implementing flexible work arrangements. More important, it lent credence to FMC's allegation of lack of raw materials, taking in as reference the attached verified complaint, answer, and complaint-affidavit filed in the ejectment and grave coercion cases involving FMC's office and warehouse in Valenzuela City, and thus found the implementation of reduced workdays justified. In any case, such decision was found to have been made in good faith, with the consent of production supervisors and personnel, and more important, falls within the management prerogative of FMC. Finally, it affirmed the award of 13 th month pay, SILP, and attorney's fees. [24] Under Resolution [25] dated January 17, 2024, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Present Petition Petitioners now seek affirmative relief from the Court and pray that the assailed disposition of the Court of Appeals be reversed and a new one rendered, granting their complaint for constructive dismissal. [26] They argue that the labor arbiter correctly declared that they were constructively dismissed, especially considering that FMC admitted hiring other employees in their place, belying its claim that the