Bilbao v. Meccaj Manpower International Agency
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 26, 2021, in G.R. No. 255226. The case involves petitioner Gemma G. Bilbao who filed a petition for review on certiorari against respondents Meccaj Manpower International Agency, Abdulelah Hamdan Zaid Alhijarval Sharif Office, Fahad Ali Fahad Almuhaisen, Mohammad, and/or Cynthia L. Hamlig. The petitioner alleged illegal dismissal and non-payment/underpayment of salaries. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in holding that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed and is therefore not entitled to her monetary claims. The Supreme Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible, and it found no conflicting factual findings from the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA. Thus, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the CA.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255226. April 26, 2021.]
GEMMA G. BILBAO, petitioner,vs. MECCAJ MANPOWER INTERNATIONAL AGENCY, ABDULELAH HAMDAN ZAID ALHIJARVAL SHARIF OFFICE, FAHAD ALI FAHAD ALMUHAISEN, MOHAMMAD, AND/OR CYNTHIA L. HAMLIG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 26 April 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255226 (Gemma G. Bilbao v. Meccaj Manpower International Agency, Abdulelah Hamdan Zaid Alhijarval Sharif Office, Fahad Ali Fahad Almuhaisen, Mohammad, and/or Cynthia L. Hamlig). — After a judicious study of this case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated September 2, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated January 5, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 155957, for failure of petitioner Gemma G. Bilbao (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in holding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed, and is therefore not entitled to her monetary claims. 4
Notably, the instant petition essentially raises questions of facts. The Court is not a trier of facts, and this rule applies with greater force in labor cases. The Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible. Generally, the Court may only look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting, 5 which is not the case here. This notwithstanding, a scrutiny of the records reveals that indeed, the NLRC thoroughly passed upon the issues and correctly ruled that the claim of illegal dismissal due to maltreatment, as well as non-payment/underpayment of salaries, was not sufficiently proven. 6 Hence, no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to it in holding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed, and is therefore not entitled to her monetary claims.
SO ORDERED. (Rosario, J., no part due to prior action in the CA; Zalameda, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated March 15, 2021)."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated March 3, 2021; rollo, pp. 12-27.
2.Id. at 31-38. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) with Associate Justices Maria Filomena D. Singh and Florencio Mallanao Mamauag, Jr., concurring.
3.Id. at 40-43. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., concurring.
4.Id. at 34-36.
5. Unsigned Resolution in Talento v. R.E.U. Marketing, G.R. No. 250023, March 11, 2020, citing HSY Marketing Ltd., Co. v. Villastique, 793 Phil. 560, 568 (2016).
6.Rollo, p. 34.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU