G.R. No. 177114 - MANOLO A. PEÑAFLOR, VS. OUTDOOR CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NATHANIEL T. SYFU, PRESIDENT, MEDYLENE M. DEMOGENA, FINANCE MANAGER, AND PAUL U. LEE, CHAIRMAN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it dismissed Peñaflor's certiorari petition. It likewise denied the motion for reconsideration that Peñaflor subsequently filed. [15] Faced with these CA actions, Peñaflor filed with us the present petition for review on certiorari . THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS Peñaflor insists that, contrary to the findings of the NLRC and the CA, he had been constructively dismissed from his employment with Outdoor Clothing. He alleges that the dismissal of his two staff members, the demeaning liaison work he had to perform as HRD Manager, the salary deduction for his alleged unauthorized absences, and the appointment of Buenaobra as the new HRD manager even before he tendered his resignation, were clear acts of discrimination that made his continued employment with the Outdoor Clothing unbearable. He was thus forced to resign. Outdoor Clothing claims that Peñaflor voluntarily resigned from his work and his contrary allegations were all unsubstantiated. The HRD was not singled out for retrenchment, but was simply the first to lose its staff members because the company had to downsize. Thus, all HRD work had to be performed by Peñaflor. Instead of being grateful that he was not among those immediately dismissed due to the company's retrenchment program, Peñaflor unreasonably felt humiliated in performing work that logically fell under his department; insisted on having a full staff complement; absented himself from work without official leave; and demanded payment for his unauthorized absences. THE ISSUE and THE COURT'S RULING The Court finds the petition meritorious. A preliminary contentious issue is Outdoor Clothing's argument that we should dismiss the petition outright because it raises questions of facts, not the legal questions that should be raised in a Rule 45 petition. [16] We see no merit in this argument as the rule that a Rule 45 petition deals only with legal issues is not an absolute rule; it admits of exceptions. In the labor law setting, we wade into factual issues when conflict of factual findings exists among the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA. This is the exact situation that obtains in the present case since the labor arbiter found facts supporting the conclusion that there had been constructive dismissal, while the NLRC's and the CA's factual findings contradicted the labor arbiter's findings. [17] Under this situation, the conflicting factual findings below are not binding on us, and we retain the authority to pass on the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom. [18] The petition turns on the question of whether Peñaflor's undisputed resignation was a voluntary or a forced one, in the latter case making it a constructive dismissal equivalent to an illegal dismissal. A critical fact necessary in resolving this issue is whether Peñaflor filed his letter of resignation before or after the appointment of Buenaobra as the new/concurrent HRD manager. This question also gives rise to the side issue of when Buenaobra's appoi