ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 168457.� July 18, 2005]
GOLD CREST APPAREL vs. GHAW
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2005.
G.R. No. 168457 (Gold Crest Apparel [Monnakiki Fashion Boutique] and/or Jaime Uy and Lalaine Lim Uy vs. Annie H. Ghaw.)
The instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78046, which affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC's) finding that petitioners were guilty of illegally terminating herein respondent's employment.
Respondent Annie Ghaw, along with four other employees of petitioner, namely, Jocelyn De Guzman, Brian Francis Reyes, Richel Francisco and Dennis San Pedro, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of full backwages, damages and attorney's fees against petitioners in March 2001. By way of defense, petitioners alleged the following: (1) Reyes, Francisco and San Pedro voluntarily resigned and were paid corresponding separation pay and other benefits; (2) De Guzman left her job without prior notice and had not reported back for work or explained her absence; (3) Herein respondent Ghaw is not an employee of petitioner; and (4) Petitioner Jaime Uy is not involved in the operations of Gold Crest Apparel.
The Labor Arbiter found petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and underpayment of labor standard benefits and ordered them to pay the complainants their money claims, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Upon appeal, the NLRC rendered a modified judgment dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal of Reyes, Francisco and San Pedro and the corresponding award of money claims, upholding the award of salary differential to Francisco, and affirming the finding that petitioners were guilty of illegally dismissing Ghaw and De Guzman. The award for damages was deleted.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which deleted the monetary award to Francisco but affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal with respect to Ghaw only since De Guzman had entered into an amicable settlement with petitioners during the pendency of the appeal.
Undaunted, petitioners now question before this Court the findings that they are guilty of illegally terminating herein respondent Ghaw and that they are solidarity liable for the payment of respondent's monetary claims.
Petitioners rehash the same arguments already ventilated and passed upon before the appellate court and the labor tribunals. A perusal of the decisions of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals reveals that the questions on the existence of employer-employee relationship between petitioners and Ghaw and the illegality of the latter's termination have been adequately resolved by them and the conclusions reached by the tribunals are supported by substantial evidence. Factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, both bodies being deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdictions, when sufficiently supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality, and are considered binding on this Court. As long as their decisions are devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the evidence proffered by the parties, all that is left is for the Court to stamp its affirmation and declare its finality. [1] cralaw
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Ignacio v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., 417 Phil. 747, 753 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
