Suppose some number $n \in \mathbb{N}$ is divisible by $144$.
$$\implies \frac{n}{144}=k, \space \space \space k \in \mathbb{Z} \\ \iff \frac{n}{36\cdot4}=k \iff \frac{n}{36}=4k$$
Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that $n$ must also be divisible by $36$. However, what I think I have just shown is:
$$\text{A number }n \space \text{is divisble by} \space 144 \implies n \space \text{is divisible by} \space 36 \space (1)$$
Is that the same as saying: $$\text{For a number to be divisible by 144 it has to be divisible by 36} \space (2)$$
In other words, are statements (1) and (2) equivalent?
Yes, it's the same. $A\implies B$ is equivalent to "if we have $A$, we must have $B$".
And your proof looks fine. Good job.
If I were to offer some constructive criticism, it would be of the general kind: In number theory, even though we call the property "divisible", we usually avoid division whenever possible. Of the four basic arithmetic operations it is the only one which makes integers into non-integers. And number theory is all about integers.
Therefore, "$n$ is divisible by $144$", or "$144$ divides $n$" as it's also called, is defined a bit backwards:
(This is defined for any number in place of $144$, except $0$.)
Using that definition, your proof becomes something like this:
If $n$ is divisible by $144$, then there is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$. This gives $$ n=144k=(36\cdot4)k=36(4k) $$ Since $4k$ is an integer, this means $n$ is also divisible by $36$.