G.R. No. 276106 - JOEL PAZO SUAZO, VS. TRI MEGAFORCE SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it reduced Suazo's total monetary award accordingly. [22] Suazo moved for reconsideration [23] which the NLRC denied in a Resolution [24] dated May 31, 2023. This prompted him to file a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [25] dated January 30, 2024, the CA dismissed Suazo's Petition. [26] The CA found the NLRC Decision to be supported by substantial evidence and thus could not ascribe grave abuse of discretion to the latter's ruling. The CA found that Suazo could not prove that respondent told him not to report for work after the last day of his tour of duty at Edades Tower. At the same time, respondent sent notices ordering him to return to work for his new assignment, which records show he failed to heed because he did not notify respondent of his new address. Thus, the CA saw no reason to annul or reverse the NLRC ruling. [27] Suazo moved to reconsider [28] which the CA denied in a Resolution [29] dated September 18, 2024. Hence this Petition, where Suazo insists that there was constructive dismissal because respondent failed to serve the RTWOs. [30] The Issue before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that Suazo was not constructively dismissed. The Court's Ruling The Petition is without merit. I The Court's review in Rule 45 petitions is discretionary in nature. Thus, it may deny petition for review on certiorari that raises no special and important reasons warranting review. [31] Moreover, a petition that raises purely factual issues must also be dismissed because the Court is not authorized to review under the Rules of Court. [32] Constructive dismissal, requiring as it does the examination and evaluation of the evidence on record, is a question of fact. As a rule, it is not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition. While there are exceptions to this rule, none can be found in this Petition. Moreover, in labor cases, the Court reviews the legal correctness of the appellate court's decision, particularly on whether there was grave abuse of discretion in the rulings of the labor tribunals. Case law has held that if the labor tribunals' ruling is based on substantial evidence, there is no grave abuse of discretion. [33] This is the case here. In finding no constructive dismissal, the labor tribunals consistently held that respondent repeatedly sent the RTWOs to the address provided by Suazo and that they were returned unserved because Suazo had moved out of the address. The LA correctly held that the unsuccessful delivery of the two most recent RTWOs cannot be taken against respondent, as it was Suazo who had moved out of the address without leaving a forwarding address. Contrary to Suazo's argument, this fact is amply supported by tracking receipts from the Philippine Postal Corporation that two of the RTWOs were undelivered because the addressee, Suazo, had moved out. [34] Finally, the NLRC's finding