SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222629. April 10, 2019.]
SERGIO R. BAYNITO, PRESIDENT OF ANG NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG A & B LINER (FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS), petitioner, vs.A & B LINER, INC., LUIS A. MANDIGMA, FRANCIS S. CRUZ, AND REINALD ANTHONY ANTIG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222629 — Sergio R. Baynito,President of Ang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng A & B Liner (Federation of Free Workers) versus A & B Liner, Inc., Luis A. Mandigma, Francis S. Cruz, and Reinald Anthony Antig
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated August 19, 2015 and Resolution 2 dated January 22, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 137297, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition.
Generally, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is not the function of the Court to examine and consider anew the factual issues and evidence already passed upon by the CA and administrative agencies. The scope of a Rule 45 petition is limited to reviewing errors of law. 3 Also settled is the rule that findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, such as the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the CA. 4
The CA did not commit any error in affirming the findings of the NLRC. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof that the termination was for a valid and just cause, as well as observance of due process, is on the employer. 5 Respondents were able to satisfy said burden. As correctly found by the CA, respondents were able to submit substantial evidence to prove the validity of Sergio Baynito's (Baynito) dismissal, in the form of affidavits of employees, the audit investigation, notice to explain, and notice of termination. On the other hand, Baynito merely denied the allegations against him. The positive incriminating evidence submitted by respondents outweigh the bare denials of Baynito. Respondents were also able to prove compliance with the two-notice rule in terminating Baynito's employment.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave; REYES, J., JR., J., no part; CARANDANG, J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated January 28, 2019)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 287-291. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this court) concurring.
2.Id. at 315-316.
3.Heirs of Pacencia Racaza v. Spouses Abay-Abay, 687 Phil. 584, 590 (2012).
4. See Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission, 679 Phil. 394, 414 (2012).
5.Ledesma, Jr. v. NLRC-Second Division, 562 Phil. 939, 951 (2007).