FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235635. April 11, 2018.]
ROBERTO M. ANDES, JR., petitioner, vs.AVM BERNARDO ENGINEERING COMPANY AND ANTONIO VALERIANO M. BERNARDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 11, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 235635 (Roberto M. Andes, Jr. v. AVM Bernardo Engineering Company and Antonio Valeriano M. Bernardo).
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated May 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141986, which affirmed the Resolution 3 dated May 21, 2015 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 04-001025-15, which dismissed the complaint for constructive dismissal filed by Roberto M. Andes, Jr. (petitioner) but ordering respondent AVM Bernardo Engineering Company (AVM) to pay the petitioner nominal damages of Php10,000.00.
After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show that the CA committed a reversible error in upholding the uniform findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
It must be understood that the Court's review of the present case is through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which generally bars any question pertaining to the factual issues raised. It is well-settled that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 4 The question of whether petitioner is constructively dismissed by AVM is a question of fact which cannot be entertained in the present case.
It is well-settled that the findings of fact made by Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not only entitled to great respect, but even finality, and are considered binding, especially when affirmed by the CA, if the same are supported by substantial evidence. 5
In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA are all in agreement when they found that there is a valid cause for dismissing petitioner. They found that petitioner has a penchant for going on absence without leave (AWOL) and for tardiness. The said infractions of petitioner were supported by his daily time records (DTRs) and several memoranda issued by AVM. We see no cogent reason to reverse such findings of the labor tribunals and the CA.
Nevertheless, while AVM has a valid cause for dismissing petitioner, AVM cannot just peremptorily dismiss petitioner without complying with the requirements of due process. It is well settled that a valid dismissal necessitates compliance with substantive and procedural requirements. It is required that (a) there should be just and valid cause for the dismissal, and (b) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. 6 The employer is required to give the employee at least two written notices before termination. One of the written notices must inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal. The other notice must inform the employee of the dismissal. Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also be given "an opportunity to be heard." 7 aScITE
AVM miserably failed to comply with the twin-notices rule. What AVM furnished the petitioner is simply a notice of indefinite suspension. When the employer fails to comply with the requisites of due process but the dismissal is with a just cause, an award for nominal damages becomes necessary. The CA therefore is correct when it upheld the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter in ordering AVM to pay petitioner nominal damages. However, in view of recent jurisprudence, We deem it proper to increase the nominal damages to Php30,000.00. 8
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141986 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that AVM Bernardo Engineering Company is ORDERED to pay Roberto M. Andes, Jr., nominal damages in the amount of Php30,000.00.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-22.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Maria Filomena D. Singh, concurring. Id. at 154-159.
3. Penned by Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus with Commissioner Alan A. Ventura, concurring. Id. at 107-114.
4.Guevarra, et al. v. People, 726 Phil. 183, 192 (2014).
5.Cervantes v. City Service Corp., et al., 784 Phil. 694, 702 (2016).
6.Roger Ortiz v. DHL Philippines Corp., et al., G.R. No. 183399, March 20, 2017.
7.Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 740 Phil. 403, 426 (2014).
8.Supra, note 6.