G.R. No. 118045 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing modification, let the appealed decision be as it is hereby Affirmed, and the appeal, dismissed." Expectedly, on 27 December 1993, Jarcia filed with the NLRC a Motion for Reconsideration/Motion to Remand Case to the Labor Arbiter for hearing on the merits. But the NLRC denied said motion on 30 September 1994. [13] Aggrieved, petitioner Jarcia filed this special civil action for certiorari, alleging that, in the light of the following considerations, public respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it affirmed the labor arbiter's decision [14] because 1.The evidence submitted by petitioner showing the private respondent's propensity to absence, tardiness and work undertime was ignored. 2.Upholding the decision of the Labor Arbiter, in the light of the foregoing evidence, would be a derogation of management's right to protect the business. 3.Private respondent could not be entitled to backwages since he was not illegally dismissed. We affirm the NLRC's decision. We fail to see any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent in upholding the labor arbiter's decision which declared Tolentino's transfer as a constructive dismissal. With respect to its first argument, petitioner contends that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in not taking into consideration private respondent' s propensity to absence, tardiness and work undertime which is allegedly well-established in private respondent's daily time records (DTR). [15] It is claimed that a perusal of these DTRs [16] would show that private respondent had been absent or had worked undertime quite a number of times for the year 1992. This had been the case since private respondent got married. [17] Petitioner claims that private respondent's record of absences, tardiness and undertime work gives petitioner more than sufficient reason to impose some disciplinary action against private respondent.[18] However, despite his work attitude, private respondent was not dismissed but merely transferred by petitioner to another position. Indeed, the DTRs annexed to the present petition would tend to establish private respondent's neglectful attitude towards his work duties as shown by repeated and habitual absences and tardiness and propensity for working undertime for the year 1992. But the problem with these DTRs is that they are neither originals nor certified true copies. They are plain photocopies of the originals, if the latter do exist. More importantly, they are not even signed by private respondent nor by any of the employer' s representatives. In all of the DTRs attached to the present petition, the space provided for the employee's signature is conspicuously blank. Hence, as pointed out by private respondent in his Comment, [19] these DTRs have not been established as pertaining to private respondent, thus raising the probability that these records may hav