ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137641.November 24, 1999]

PHILTREAD TIRE vs. FLORES

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 24 1999 .

G.R. No. 137641(Philtread Tire & Rubber Corp vs. Carlito Flores.)

This is a Motion for Reconsideration of our Resolution dated August 30, 1999 denying the petition for review for lack of merit.

Petitioner alleges that in the resolution of the case, the Court went overboard by touching on the merits of the case when it was not the real issue raised in the petition. Instead, the Court should have merely focused on the sole issue which was whether or not "the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petitioner's petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground that it failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 43 of the same Rules."

Nothing precludes this Court from touching other issues raised which call for a speedy and just disposition of the case. Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the petition also raised as error the appellate court's conclusion that Philtread's petition before it essentially raised factual issues. ¹ Rollo, p. 100

Notwithstanding, the instant petition undoubtedly seeks a reversal of the labor arbiter's finding that private respondent was illegally dismissed, a finding affirmed in toto by the NLRC and which the petitioner questioned before the Court of Appeals. While the respondent court may have erred in applying Rule 43 in the case, it did not resort to these technical grounds alone and also considered the merits of the case. The court then found it proper to dismiss it for being essentially factual in nature. After such adverse decision, the petitioner went up to this Court. Based on the pleadings filed before us which we find sufficient for a proper disposition of the case, the Court agrees with the respondent court that factual issues are indeed involved, the resolution of which is best left to the labor courts.

Hence, the denial of the petition.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to:

(a) DENY the motion for reconsideration;

(b) Note and Grant the Motion for Leave To File Opposition To The Aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration;

(c) Note the Opposnion filed by private respondent;

Note the Reply filed by the petitioner.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE