ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 117232. February 2, 1999]

CO TUAN, SAMUEL D. ANG, et al. vs. NLRC, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 2, 1999.

G.R. No. 117232 (Co Tuan, Samuel D. Ang, Jorge Lim and Edwin B. Gotamco versus National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Arbiter Numeriano D. Villena, Confederation of Labor Unions of the Philippines (CLUP), et al.)

For resolution is a Motion for Reconsideration interposed by respondent Confederation of labor Unions of the Philippines of the decision promulgated in this case on April 22, 1998, granting the petition and setting aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of NLRC to pass the issue of fraud or bad faith in the sale of real properties to third persons not impleaded in the case before it.

In seeking reversal of this Court's decision, private respondents invoke as their grounds: (1) the lack of a prior motion for reconsideration before the NLRC; (2) the finality accorded to findings of facts by the sale was intended to evade final judgment in the labor case; and (3) the protection to labor and principle of social justice under the Constitution.

The first poses nothing new. Amply discussed and elucidated upon, the court deems it unnecessary to repeat here the disquisition and ruling thereon. Anent the second ground, suffice it to state that while findings of fact by quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are generally accorded much respect, the same must be anchored on substantial evidence.1 [PAL vs. NLRC, 258 SCRA 243; Palomado vs. NLRC, 257 SCRA 680; Pepsi Cola vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 267; Laguio vs. NLRC, 262 SCRA 709.]

1 Then, too, there are established exceptions to the rule, as such as when the factual findings by the Labor Arbiter and those of the NLRC are at variance, as in the case under scrutiny.

We are mindful of the Constitutional mandate for the protection of labor and the provision on social justice of the Constitution but the same apply only when labor is pitted against capital or employees against the employer.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration under consideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE