ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139550. September 15, 1999]

PANTHER EXPRESS, INC. vs. AMADOR RECIBE

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 15 1999.

G.R. No. 139550 (Panther Express, Inc. vs. Amador Recibe.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator which pertinently states:

WHEREFOR ALL THE FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is hereby ordered:

1. That the dismissal be as it is hereby declared without due process and therefore illegal.

2. That the complainant in hereby reinstated to the former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges.

3. That the respondent company is hereby ordered to pay the complainant his full backwages, inclusive of allowances and his other benefits and other benefits computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

SO ORDERED.

The present stemmed from an irregularity report received by private respondent while he was assigned as chief mechanic of the La Union Terminal of petitioner.

The report stated that private respondent was drunk on the night of August 14 and 15, 1997.

Upon a grievance meeting held between management and union, petitioner's general manager gave private respondent another chance, allowing him to return to work after receiving an oral admonition and warned no to repeat the same offense.

However, on September 23, 1997, petitioner's branch manager informed the operations manager that private respondent reported for work drunk. Upon administrative inquiry, private respondent was required to submit to submit a written explanation with an attestation from his co-employees that he was not drunk while on duty. Private respondent submitted said explanation but without the written attestation of his co-employees. Subsequently, private respondent was placed under preventive suspension from October 2, 1997 to November 2, 1997 and was eventually terminated on November 1.

The parties agreed to voluntary arbitration of the matter regarding validity of private respondent's termination. The voluntary arbitrator thereafter ruled in favor of private respondent.

Displeased, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals which in turn affirmed the decision of the voluntary arbitrator.

Thus, the instant petition alleging that during the time of private respondent's preventive suspension he was already employed with a certain Genesis Service, Inc., hence, he is not entitled to reinstatement with backwages; likewise, petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator to hear and decide the instant case.

The petition is unavailing.

Petitioner's desperate attempt to cast doubt on the proceedings before the voluntary arbitrator deserves scant consideration. It is undesirable practice for a party to participate in the proceedings, submit his case for decision, and then accept the judgment only if the same is favorable, but attack it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse (Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 86 [1995]).

Petitioner's assertion as to private respondent's employment during his preventive suspension cannot prosper for the same is a matter of fact. Basic is the rule that factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are accorded not only respect but even finality aside from the consideration that the Supreme Court is essentially not a trier of facts (Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Corporation vs. NLRC, 269 SCRA 199 [1997]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE