THIRD DIVISION
COSMOS BOTTLING
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
146397
July 1, 2003
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION,SERGIO G. REY, SIXTO
BATINO, RIZALINO T.chanrobles virtual law library
TAMONDONG,
ROBERTO
SANTOS, HERMINIOG. DELA ROSA, EMILIO
B. MAGLEO, JOHNNY G.chanrobles virtual law libraryBACANI, ZALDY G.
GUZMAN, JONATHAN Y.chanrobles virtual law libraryRELEVO AND IRENEO
SOLIS,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I
O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
We reiterate here that
only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised before us
in
a Petition for Review on
Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended.
At bar is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision[1]
dated August 4, 2000 and Resolution[2]
dated December 13, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53548.cralaw:red
The facts as borne by
the records are:
Sometime in the months
of December, 1992 and January, 1993, Cosmos Bottling Corporation,
petitioner,
through Leonardo Makasili, Personnel Manager, and Manuel Lim,
Comptroller,
conducted an investigation of the participation of seven (7) salesmen
and
three (3) checkers assigned at its San Pedro Plant, on the reported
tampering,
falsification and alteration of the Load Tally Statement Sheets (LTSS)
which deprived petitioner of unremitted sales proceeds in the sum of
P130,000.00.
The said salesmen and checkers are the respondents herein,
namely:
Sergio C. Rey, Sixto Batino, Rizalino T. Tamondong, Roberto Santos,
Herminio
G. Dela Cruz, Emilio B. Magleo, Johnny G. Bacani, Zaldy G. Guzman,
Jonathan
Y. Relevo and Ireneo Solis.chanrobles virtual law library
During the investigation,
respondents denied their participation in the alleged illegal acts and
pointed to the guards, assigned to check the deliveries, as the real
culprits.
However, petitioner, relying heavily on the statement of Saturnino
Montecalvo,
terminated respondents’ employment on the grounds of "fraudulent
conspiracy"
and dishonesty.cralaw:red
Feeling aggrieved, respondents
filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against petitioner for illegal
dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of full backwages,
damages and attorney’s fees, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 02-00968-93.cralaw:red
On December 27, 1996,
the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the dismissal of
respondents
illegal and ordering petitioner to pay them their separation pay and
backwages,
thus:
"WHEREFORE,
Decision is hereby rendered ordering respondent Cosmos Bottling
Corporation
to pay the complainants their separation pay and backwages, as follows:
1. Sergio C. Rey
Separation
Pay:
P 6,552.00
Backwages
P 102,069,24 P 108,621.24
2. Sixto Batino
Separation
Pay:
P 51,120.00chanrobles virtual law library
Backwages
P 176,969.86 P 228,089.86chanrobles virtual law library
3. Rizalino T.
Tamondongchanrobles virtual law library
Separation
Pay:
P 8,840.00
Backwages
P 110,169.97 P 119,009.97
4. Roberto Santos
Separation
Pay:
P 27,040.00
Backwages
P 129,611.73 P 156,651.73
5. Herminio G.
dela
Rosa
Separation
Pay:
P 10,608.00
Backwages
P 110,169.97 P 120,777.97
6. Emilio Magleo
Separation
Pay:
P 27,378.00
Backwages
P 131,231.88 P 158,609.88
7. Johnny Bacani
Separation
Pay:
P 33,904.00
Backwages
P 132,041.95 P 165,945.95
8. Zaldy G. Guzmanchanrobles virtual law library
Separation
Pay:
P 6,240.00[3]chanrobles virtual law library
Backwages
P 129,611.73 P 135,851.73[4]chanrobles virtual law library
9. Jonathan Relevochanrobles virtual law library
Separation
Pay:
P 5,421.00chanrobles virtual law library
Backwages
P 112,600.19 P 118,021.19chanrobles virtual law library
10. Ireneo Solischanrobles virtual law library
Separation
Pay:
P 8,265.00chanrobles virtual law library
Backwages
P 171,673.23 P 179,938.23chanrobles virtual law library
TOTAL
AWARD
P1,491,517.75[5]
"SO ORDERED."
On appeal, the NLRC
issued
a Resolution which modified in part the Arbiter’s Decision by ordering
a re-computation of respondent Zaldy G. Guzman’s separation pay on the
basis of his thirteen (13) years of service, instead of three
(3).
In upholding the factual findings of the Arbiter, the NLRC held:
"x
x x
x
x
x
x x x
"All told,
respondent
simply failed to establish by substantial evidence the complainants’
individual
culpability on the alleged tampering or alteration. The sweeping
charge of ‘fraudulent conspiracy’ leveled by the respondent against the
complainants does not stand on firm legal ground sufficient to warrant
the dismissal of any of the complainants for valid cause.
"Moreover, as the
Supreme
Court has consistently held: ‘In dismissal cases, the employer
has
the burden of proving that the termination from the service of an
employee
is for valid or authorized cause.’ Herein respondent
clearly
failed to discharge that burden.
"x
x
x x
x
x
x x x
"We, however,
sustain
complainants’ claim that the computation of complainant Zaldy G.
Guzman’s
separation pay should be based on the 13 years of service and not three
(3) as found by the Labor Arbiter. x
x
x.chanrobles virtual law library
"In the light of
the
foregoing, We find respondent’s appeal insufficient to warrant reversal
of the appealed decision. However, as regard complainants’
partial appeal, the same is granted only in so far as the recomputation
of complainant Zaldy G. Guzman’s separation pay which should be
reckoned
from April 24, 1982.
"WHEREFORE,
premises
considered, respondent’s appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and
the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED only in so far as the
recomputation[6]
of complainant Zaldy G. Guzman’s separation pay is concerned which
should
be based on his thirteen (13) years of service.
"SO ORDERED."
Petitioner then filed a
motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution
dated
May 17, 1999.
On July 5, 1999, petitioner
filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari alleging that
the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to uphold the
validity
and legality of respondents’ termination from employment.cralaw:red
In a Decision dated
August 4, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, thus:
"Perusal of
the record reveals that petitioner miserably failed to establish by
substantial
evidence the private respondents’ individual culpability on the alleged
tampering or alteration. The sweeping charge of fraudulent
conspiracy
leveled by the petitioner against the private respondents does not
stand
on firm legal ground, sufficient to warrant their dismissal for valid
cause.
"Moreover, as the
Supreme
Court has consistently held, ‘In dismissal cases, the employer has the
burden of proving that the termination from the service of an employee
is for a valid or authorized cause.’ After careful assessment of
the facts and evidence obtaining in the case at bench, petitioner
clearly
failed to discharge that burden.
"Well-settled is
the
rule that factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission,
particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, are
accorded
respect, even finality, and will not be disturbed as long as such
findings
are supported by substantial justice.chanrobles virtual law library
"Grave abuse of
discretion
is committed only when the judgment is rendered in a capricious,
whimsical,
arbitrary or despotic manner. There being no puissant
justification
for us to adjudge both the Labor Arbiter’s and NLRC’s appreciation of
such
evidence as indicative of any grave abuse of discretion, petitioner’s
case
before this Court has no leg to stand on.
"WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and
DISMISSED
for lack of merit. The Resolutions dated February 23, 1999 and
May
17, 1999 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.chanrobles virtual law library
"SO ORDERED."
On August 28,
2000,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in a
Resolution
dated December 13, 2000.
Hence, this petition
for review on certiorari.cralaw:red
Petitioner’s grievance
is that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in affirming the assailed
Resolutions of the NLRC which upheld the legality of respondents’
termination
from employment.cralaw:red
We have always accorded
respect and finality to the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals,
particularly
if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC when
supported
by substantial evidence. The reason for this is that
quasi-judicial
agencies, like the Arbitration Board and the NLRC, have acquired a
unique
expertise because their jurisdictions are confined to specific matters.[7]
Whether or not respondents committed dishonesty and "fraudulent
conspiracy"
is indeed a factual question.chanrobles virtual law library
The jurisdiction of
this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is limited to reviewing only
errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed
are not supported by evidence on record or the impugned judgment is
based
on a misapprehension of facts.[8]
These exceptions are not present here.chanrobles virtual law library
The lone issue being
raised by petitioner does not involve a question of law but merely a
question
of fact. This is not cognizable by this Court under Rule 45.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August 4,
2000 and the Resolution dated December 13, 2000 of the Court of Appeals
are AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
Costs against petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 143-150.
[2]
Id. at 162.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Recomputed to P27,040.00, per NLRC Resolution dated February 23, 1999.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Respondent Zaldy G. Guzman’s total monetary award, as recomputed:
P156,651.73.
[5]
Total monetary award, as recomputed: P1,512,317.75.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Respondent Zaldy G. Guzman’s separation pay should be recomputed as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4/24/82
- 6/15/95 = 13 yearschanrobles virtual law library
P160.00
x 13 days x 13 years = P27,040.00chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Vide, German Marine Agencies, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 142049, January
30,
2001, 350 SCRA 629.
[8]
De Rama vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131136, February 28, 2001, 351
SCRA
94, citing Linzag vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122181, June 26, 1998,
291 SCRA 304, 321 and Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126363, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA
385,
392.chanrobles virtual law library |