March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185876 : March 24, 2010] ALEX B. CALIMAG, EFREN R. SOLITO AND MARCOS A. TULIAO, PETITIONERS VS. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, K-9 SECURITY AND MANPOWER CORPORATION AND 168 SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS.:
[G.R. No. 185876 : March 24, 2010]
ALEX B. CALIMAG, EFREN R. SOLITO AND MARCOS A. TULIAO, PETITIONERS VS. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, K-9 SECURITY AND MANPOWER CORPORATION AND 168 SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 March 2010:
G.R. No. 185876 - ALEX B. CALIMAG, EFREN R. SOLITO and MARCOS A. TULIAO, petitioners -versus- COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, K-9 SECURITY AND MANPOWER CORPORATION and 168 SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., respondents.
In this petition for review on certiorari[1] Efren R. Solito (Solito) and Marcos A. Tuliao (Tuliao) seek to reverse the decision[2] dated October 17, � 2006 and resolution[3] dated January 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 95053. The CA decision dismissed the petitioners' petition for certiorari of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) decision dated June 17, 2005 and resolution dated September 8, 2005 in NLRC CA No. 042518-14; the CA resolution denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The facts of the case, gathered from the parties' pleadings, are briefly summarized below.
On September 15, 2003, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondents K-9 Security and Manpower Corporation, 168 Security and Allied Services. Inc., and their respective owners, Jayson U. Ang (J. Ang) and William U. Ang (W. Ang).
In compulsory arbitration. Calimag took the position that on December 2001, he went on a verbally approved leave; when he called a month later to resume work, J. Ang refused to take him back; instead, J. Ang issued a memorandum regarding his absence without notice from December 19, 2001 until April 2002.
Solito, for his part, alleged that he started as security guard on August 4, 1997, later becoming a security inspector; since December 2001, no work assignment was given to him; on December 18, 2001, he was forced to file a resignation letter in exchange for the payment of his claims for 13 month pay, separation pay and commissions, but he received only his 13 month pay.
Tuliao, on the other hand, alleged that the respondents started on April 1998; in May 2001, he went on an approved 7-day leave, but when he reported back for work, he was not given any work assignment; he remained on a floating status for 2 years; on May 14, 2003, he was forced to file a resignation letter because the respondents refused to pay his money claims unless he resigned, but he received only P700.00 representing his cash bond; on May 14, 2003, he was issued a clearance indicating that 168 Security paid all his benefits including wages, and that he was waiving his rights and claims against the agency, although he did not sign the clearance.
The respondents denied liability, claiming that Calimag went on absence without official leave, while Solito and Tuliao voluntarily resigned.
In a decision dated September 20, 2004, Labor Arbiter Waldo Emerson R. Gan dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, sustaining the respondents' position that the petitioners were validly separated from the service.[4]
Roberto Diokno, the petitioners' counsel, received copy of the labor arbiter's decision on November 18, 2004. He filed an appeal memorandum with the NLRC on December 1, 2004.
The NLRC decided the appeal on June 17, 2005. It dismissed the petitioners' appeal for late filing, noting that the petition was filed 1 day late. After the NLRC denied their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their appeal on a mere technicality.
In its decision of October 17, 2006, the CA dismissed the petitioners' petition for certiorari, finding that the NLRC correctly dismissed the petitioners' belated appeal.[5] It noted that, even if the petitioners' procedural lapse was disregarded, the petition still lacks merit because of the labor arbiter's well-founded findings and conclusions. The CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on January 5, 2007,[6] paving the way for the present petition.
The petitioners argue that the NLRC should have set aside technicalities and tried the case on the merits; otherwise, justice would be denied them even if they had clearly made a meritorious case for illegal dismissal.
The respondents submit that the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC decision and in upholding the findings of the labor arbiter.
After an objective consideration of the submissions of the parties, we resolve to deny the petition. The CA decision is well-founded in law and on facts, and the petitioners raise no new arguments that would warrant its reversal. Indeed, the petitioners' appeal before the NLRC was filed beyond the reglementary period, in contravention of the law and the rules.[7]' More importantly, the CA upheld the labor arbiter's findings that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed; Calimag, abandoned his employment; Solito and Tuliao, voluntarily resigned. The conclusion of the CA on the merits of the case is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, binding on the Court.[8]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 24th day of March, 2010.
G.R. No. 185876 - ALEX B. CALIMAG, EFREN R. SOLITO and MARCOS A. TULIAO, petitioners -versus- COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, K-9 SECURITY AND MANPOWER CORPORATION and 168 SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC., respondents.
In this petition for review on certiorari[1] Efren R. Solito (Solito) and Marcos A. Tuliao (Tuliao) seek to reverse the decision[2] dated October 17, � 2006 and resolution[3] dated January 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 95053. The CA decision dismissed the petitioners' petition for certiorari of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) decision dated June 17, 2005 and resolution dated September 8, 2005 in NLRC CA No. 042518-14; the CA resolution denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts of the case, gathered from the parties' pleadings, are briefly summarized below.
On September 15, 2003, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondents K-9 Security and Manpower Corporation, 168 Security and Allied Services. Inc., and their respective owners, Jayson U. Ang (J. Ang) and William U. Ang (W. Ang).
In compulsory arbitration. Calimag took the position that on December 2001, he went on a verbally approved leave; when he called a month later to resume work, J. Ang refused to take him back; instead, J. Ang issued a memorandum regarding his absence without notice from December 19, 2001 until April 2002.
Solito, for his part, alleged that he started as security guard on August 4, 1997, later becoming a security inspector; since December 2001, no work assignment was given to him; on December 18, 2001, he was forced to file a resignation letter in exchange for the payment of his claims for 13 month pay, separation pay and commissions, but he received only his 13 month pay.
Tuliao, on the other hand, alleged that the respondents started on April 1998; in May 2001, he went on an approved 7-day leave, but when he reported back for work, he was not given any work assignment; he remained on a floating status for 2 years; on May 14, 2003, he was forced to file a resignation letter because the respondents refused to pay his money claims unless he resigned, but he received only P700.00 representing his cash bond; on May 14, 2003, he was issued a clearance indicating that 168 Security paid all his benefits including wages, and that he was waiving his rights and claims against the agency, although he did not sign the clearance.
The respondents denied liability, claiming that Calimag went on absence without official leave, while Solito and Tuliao voluntarily resigned.
THE LABOR ARBITER'S RULING
In a decision dated September 20, 2004, Labor Arbiter Waldo Emerson R. Gan dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, sustaining the respondents' position that the petitioners were validly separated from the service.[4]
Roberto Diokno, the petitioners' counsel, received copy of the labor arbiter's decision on November 18, 2004. He filed an appeal memorandum with the NLRC on December 1, 2004.
THE NLRC RULING
The NLRC decided the appeal on June 17, 2005. It dismissed the petitioners' appeal for late filing, noting that the petition was filed 1 day late. After the NLRC denied their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their appeal on a mere technicality.
THE CA RULING
In its decision of October 17, 2006, the CA dismissed the petitioners' petition for certiorari, finding that the NLRC correctly dismissed the petitioners' belated appeal.[5] It noted that, even if the petitioners' procedural lapse was disregarded, the petition still lacks merit because of the labor arbiter's well-founded findings and conclusions. The CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on January 5, 2007,[6] paving the way for the present petition.
THE PETITION
The petitioners argue that the NLRC should have set aside technicalities and tried the case on the merits; otherwise, justice would be denied them even if they had clearly made a meritorious case for illegal dismissal.
THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents submit that the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC decision and in upholding the findings of the labor arbiter.
OUR RULING
After an objective consideration of the submissions of the parties, we resolve to deny the petition. The CA decision is well-founded in law and on facts, and the petitioners raise no new arguments that would warrant its reversal. Indeed, the petitioners' appeal before the NLRC was filed beyond the reglementary period, in contravention of the law and the rules.[7]' More importantly, the CA upheld the labor arbiter's findings that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed; Calimag, abandoned his employment; Solito and Tuliao, voluntarily resigned. The conclusion of the CA on the merits of the case is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, binding on the Court.[8]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 24th day of March, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L.LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L.LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Filed under Rule 45 of the RULES OF COURT.
[2] Penned by Associate Tustice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama. Jr. (now also a Member of this Court) and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, concurring:
[2] see Rollo 131-142 :
[3] Id. at 158.
[4] Id, at 67-80. D
[5] Supra note 1.
[6] Supra note 3.
[7] LABOR CODE, Article 223 and NLRC Rules of Procedure, Section 1,
[8] Rosario Textile Milts, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 828, 838.
