SECOND DIVISION
[UDK 16077. February 12, 2018.]
FEDERICO INOCENCIO ALMENDARES, JR., petitioner, vs.COUGAR SECURITY AGENCY AND CESAR BENGSON POE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 February 2018which reads as follows: ETHIDa
"UDK 16077 (Federico Inocencio Almendares, Jr. v. Cougar Security Agency and Cesar Bengson Poe)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 24, 2017 Decision 1 and November 23, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138659 for failure of petitioner Federico Inocencio Almendares, Jr. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the validity of his dismissal.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents were able to prove by substantial evidence that: (a) petitioner committed dishonesty in violation of the company rules when he did not report the company property found in the guard house, and instead, directed his co-guard to throw them at the nearby canal, which is considered a serious misconduct 3 that justifies an employer in terminating its employee under Article 282 (now Article 296) of the Labor Code; and (b) respondent Cougar Security Agency accorded procedural due process to petitioner as he was furnished with a notice to explain and a notice of termination. It is settled that factual findings of the labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and finality and are binding upon this Court, absent any of the recognized exceptions, 4 none of which are present in this case.
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official business)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 49-65. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan concurring.
2.Id. at 30-31.
3. For serious misconduct to be a just cause for dismissal, the concurrence of the following elements is required: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. (Ting Trucking v. Makilan, G.R. No. 216452, June 20, 2016, 794 SCRA 140, 151-152; citation omitted)
4. See Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, G.R. No. 206390, January 30, 2017.