ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 141608.December 9, 2002]

ANFLO MGMT. & INVESTMENT CORP., et al. vs. BOLANIO

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 DEC 2002.

����������� G.R. No. 141608(Anflo Management & Investment Corp. and/or Linda F. Lagdameo vs. Rodolfo D. Bolanio.)

Before the Court is a motion seeking reconsideration of our decision dated October 4, 2002 which affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding that respondent was illegally dismissed from employment by petitioners.

Petitioners present the following assignments:(1) a perusal of the evidence on record would clearly establish that respondent was never dismissed form employment.Rather, it was respondent himself who abandoned his employment; (2) considering that it was respondent who voluntarily severed his employment with the company, there is no basis to rule that respondent was denied due process; (3) the findings of fact of the labor arbiter and the NLRC were supported by clear and substantial evidence.Hence, they should have been given due weight and respect, if not finality; and (4) since it was respondent himself who willfully refused to report back to work, no award for payment of backwages can be properly made in the present case.

After once again reviewing the records, we find no compelling reason to reverse or modify our main decision.

It should be noted at the outset that no substantial arguments nor new matters were raised by petitioners in their motion for reconsideration.Rather, the issues presented by petitioners were, in essence, an exact reproduction of the arguments previously made by them in their petition for review, which issues were already passed upon by this Court.

Petitioners insist that there was no illegal dismissal in this case inasmuch as its Personnel Manager even personally went to the residence of respondent to convince the latter to return to work.Regrettably, however, as previously discussed in our main decision, this was done a day too later (November 5, 1994) which was a day after respondent already filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on November 4, 1994.

We understand the predicament of the petitioners considering that this case stemmed from an apparently petty altercation between the parties.But, at the same time, this Court can do nothing but decide on the facts and the evidence presented before it.

WHEREFORE, the instant motion is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

����������� (Panganiban, J., no part)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE