G.R. No. 188086 ; August 3, 2011
FRANCIS BELLO, represented herein by his daughter and attorney-in-fact, Geraldine Bello-Ona, Petitioner, vs. BONIFACIO SECURITY SERVICES, INC. and SAMUEL TOMAS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francis Bello was hired in July 2001 by respondent Bonifacio Security Services, Inc. (BSSI) as a roving traffic marshal. His assignments changed several times: he was posted at Negros Navigation Company in August 2001, assigned as assistant detachment commander at Bonifacio Global City (BGC) in November 2001, transferred to Pacific Plaza Towers as assistant detachment commander and later detachment commander, reassigned to Pier 2 in June 2002 as assistant detachment commander, and then reassigned back to BGC. In August 2002, BSSI underwent a reorganization. In October 2002, Bello was reassigned as a roving traffic marshal at BGC. On October 25, 2002, he filed an indefinite leave of absence. On November 5, 2002, Bello filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), claiming he was demoted from detachment commander to traffic marshal after a series of promotions. BSSI denied constructive dismissal, arguing that the designations were duty-related assignments, not promotions, and that Bello abandoned his job. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Bello, finding illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC affirmed this decision. BSSI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified the NLRC resolutions, finding no evidence to support constructive dismissal. Bello elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition should be dismissed outright for defective verification.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the NLRC’s resolutions and ruling that there was no constructive dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed CA decision and resolution.
1. On the procedural issue of defective verification: The Court ruled that the verification substantially complied with the rules. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement. The Special Power of Attorney authorized Bello-Ona to represent Bello in the case from which the present petition originated. As Bello’s daughter, she is deemed to have sufficient knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations, which are matters of record.
2. On the substantive issue of constructive dismissal: The Court found no error in the CA’s conclusion that there was no constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal exists when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, such as through demotion in rank or diminution in pay. The Court held that Bello offered no evidence, other than bare and self-serving allegations, to prove he was promoted from traffic marshal to detachment commander within a short span of time during his six-month probationary period. The changes in his designation were merely reassignments or transfers within management’s prerogative to meet business requirements. His consequent reassignment to a traffic marshal post was within the scope of BSSI’s management prerogative and did not constitute constructive dismissal.