In petitions for review under Rule 45, only questions of law must be raised.It is elementary rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Here, the findings of the Labor Arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, on the other, are conflicting, thus we are constrained to determine the facts of the case.
FACTS:
Respondent was hired by petitioner as a transit mixer driver with a status of a project employee. Sometime thereafter, petitioners received reports that respondent unloaded less than a cubic meter of concrete mix two kilometers away from the project site and sold the excess to the residents nearby. As such, respondent was required by petitioner to explain in writing why he should not be meted with disciplinary action for the alleged act of theft or dishonesty under the company’s Code of Conduct and Discipline. The respondent explained his side but was still meted with a three-day suspension. In another report received by petitioner, respondent allegedly took the company’s plastic drum for personal
gain. The allegation was denied by the respondent, explaining that it would be impossible to do the same without being noticed by the guard. An investigation was then conducted within which the respondent was placed under preventive suspension.
As the respondent did not report for work after the period of preventive suspension expired, the petitioners terminated him on the ground of abandonment of work, nor did he report after a telegram was sent him requiring him to return. Earlier, however, a complaint for, among others, unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal was filed by the respondent against the petitioners. He denied that he went AWOL and was just awaiting the result of the investigation as of the alleged theft of company property and did not abandon his work, and prayed for reinstatement.
The LA dismissed the case for lack of merit, finding that the respondent was validly dismissed from his employment as he abandoned his job. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the latter modified the decision of the LA, ordering the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full backwages, finding that no abandonment occurred as there was no clear showing that respondent was required to return to work after the period of preventive suspension. The motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied by the NLRC, which prompted the filing of an appeal before the CA. The CA rendered the assailed decision affirming the NLRC decision. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent deliberately abandoned his work which is a just cause for his dismissal. RULING:
It must be stressed that in petitions for review under Rule 45, only questions of law must be raised. Whether respondent abandoned his job or was illegally dismissed are questions of fact better left to quasi-judicial agencies to determine. It is elementary rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. In exceptional cases, however, the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues when the LA and the NLRC came up with conflicting positions. Here, the findings of the Labor Arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, on the other, are conflicting, thus we are constrained to determine the facts of the case.
It is well settled that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause, and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal. In this case, petitioners claim that respondent was validly dismissed as he abandoned his work as shown by the following circumstances, to wit: He did not go back to work on May 6, 2001, i.e, after his preventive suspension expired on May 5, 2001; he did not report to work despite receipt of the telegram on May 25, 2001 stating that "he was absent without official leave since May 5, 2001, and to notify CSI as soon as possible," but instead , through his lawyer, sent a letter asking for a copy of the result of the investigation; despite not being given the result of the investigation, respondent still did not bother to report back to work; and the complaint he filed with the LA did not pray for reinstatement.
To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur, to wit: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. To be a valid cause for dismissal for abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Clearly, the operative act is still the employee's ultimate act of putting an end to his employment.
We find that the elements of abandonment are lacking. The CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the NLRC's decision that respondent was illegally dismissed for petitioners' failure to substantiate their claim that the former abandoned his work. The circumstances obtaining in this case do not indicate abandonment.
UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT INC. v. WILLIAM M. SORIANO G.R. No. 182072, June 19, 2013
J. Peralta
The CA can grant a petition when the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record; when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, the CA can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that there was no illegal dismissal against respondent.
FACTS:
A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by respondent against petitioner for being terminatedeight days prior to the completion of his six months probationary employment period. Petitioner, on the other hand, claims that there was no illegal dismissal as the respondent did not report for work which constitutes abandonment. After earlier declaring at a meeting that he intended to leave the company, petitioner presumably understood respondent’s absence from work as such intention.
The LA dismissed the respondent’s complaint for lack of merit, which was later affirmed by the NLRC. When respondent elevated the matter to the CA under Rule 65, the NLRC decision was nullified and petitioner was ordered to pay the respondent full backwages and separation pay. The CA considered respondent’s dismissal from employment illegal because he was not informed of the standards required for regularization; petitioner failed to show proof that respondent’s performance was poor and unsatisfactory constituting a just cause for termination; and that the evidence presented negates petitioner’s claim that respondent abandoned his job. Hence, this appeal under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA violated the doctrine of immutability of judgment of the NLRC when the former granted the petition for certiorari of the respondent.
RULING:
The petition is without merit.
Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, the decision of the NLRC becomes final and executory after the lapse of ten calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. However, the adverse party is not precluded from assailing the decision via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA and then to this Court via a petition for review under Rule 45. Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, there is no violation of the doctrine of immutability of judgment when respondent elevated the matter to the CA which the latter consequently granted.
The power of the CA to review NLRC decisions has already been thoroughly explained and clarified by the Court in several cases, to wit:
The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via Rule 65 or Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in our decision in St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission. This Court held that the proper vehicle for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that this action should be filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts. Moreover, it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals — pursuant to the exercise of its original
jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari — is specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues.
We agree with petitioner that in a special civil action for certiorari, the issues are confined to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. In exercising the expanded judicial review over labor cases, the Court of Appeals can grant the petition if it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence which is material or decisive of the controversy which necessarily includes looking into the evidence presented by the parties. In other words, the CA is empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of the evidence which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC in relation to all other evidence on record. The CA can grant a petition when the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record; when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, the CA can review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the evidence of the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that there was no illegal dismissal against respondent.
HOSPICIO D. ROSAROSO, ANTONIO D. ROSAROSO, MANUEL D. ROSAROSO, ALGERICA D.