FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242370. January 21, 2019.]
ERNEST J. BARISO, petitioner,vs. TASKUS, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 21, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242370 — Ernest J. Bariso, petitioner, v. Taskus, Inc., respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the July 20, 2018 Decision and September 25, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152020, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the CA that petitioner was not illegally dismissed by respondent. Indeed, the records are bereft of evidence to establish the fact of petitioner's dismissal. Aside from his mere assertion, no corroborative and competent evidence was adduced by petitioner to substantiate his claim that he was dismissed from employment. Let it be underscored that the evidence to prove the fact of dismissal should be clear, positive and convincing. 1 As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner's allegation that his teammates informed him of his alleged dismissal was unsubstantiated and unverified. The computer print-outs showing the list of respondent's employees were unauthenticated and unsigned; hence, inadmissible in proving petitioner's claim. Further, the deactivation of petitioner's email account was sufficiently explained to be a valid security measure adopted by the company. Notably, petitioner did not deny that return to work orders were issued to and received by him. There was, therefore, no apparent intent on the part of respondent to dismiss him.
Given that there was no dismissal to speak of, there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof. 2
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed July 20, 2018 Decision and September 25, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152020.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Tri-C General Services v. Matuto, 770 Phil. 251, 262 (2015).
2.Abueva v. Hacienda Consolacion, 632 Phil. 430, 442 (2010).