G.R. No. 183915 - MA. JOY TERESA O. BILBAO, VS. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the respondents' appeal is hereby GRANTED . The decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is issued finding the respondent not guilty of illegal dismissal. For lack of merit, the complainant Bilbao's appeal is DISMISSED . Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED . [8] In a Resolution [9] dated October 26, 2007, the NLRC amended its earlier Resolution dated June 25, 2007, to state that Castells and Centi-Mandanas were also not entitled to moral and exemplary damages. Moreover, the NLRC failed to find any compelling justification or valid reason to modify, alter or reverse its earlier resolution, thus: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Appeals and Motions for Reconsideration of complainants Maria Lourdes Castells and Shalimar Centi-Mandanas are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Likewise, the Motion for Reconsideration of Maria Joy Teresa Bilbao is DENIED . No further motion of similar nature shall be entertained. [10] Bilbao went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that she was not illegally dismissed and not entitled to the payment of moral and exemplary damages. On May 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Resolutions of the NLRC dated June 25, 2007 and October 26, 2007, and held that the resignation of Bilbao was "of her own free will and intelligent act." [11] Dissatisfied, Bilbao filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Court of Appeals in the Resolution dated July 22, 2008. Hence, the instant petition for review filed by Bilbao on the following grounds: 6. GROUND FOR THIS PETITION/ISSUES 6.1. The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the erroneous Decision of the NLRC, Third Division which Decision reversed the Labor Arbiter's findings. The Court of Appeals decided the case in a way probably not in accord with law or with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. 6.2. The Court of Appeals committed palpable error in ruling that petitioner was not forced to resign; the Court of Appeals decided the case in a way probably not in accord with law and contrary to applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. 6.3. The Court of Appeals committed patent mistake in ruling that the petitioners' (sic) termination was valid because respondent had the right to terminate the petitioner even without just cause; this is an outright violation of the Labor Code and applicable laws and jurisprudence; The Court of Appeals likewise erred in validating the resignation because it was accompanied with words of gratitude and payment of separation benefits. [12] In her Petition [13] dated September 15, 2008, Bilbao asserts that the initial step of Saudia in transferring her to Jeddah was, by itself, constructive dismissal since the transfer order was unreasonable, discriminatory, attended by bad faith, and would result to demotion in rank or diminution in pay.