FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 259809. September 21, 2022.]
ELMEDIO VELASCO CASTRO, JR., petitioner,vs. ACE PROMOTION AND MARKETING CORPORATION AND RAMIL RAYMUND RANCES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 21, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 259809 (Elmedio Velasco Castro, Jr. v. Ace Promotion and Marketing Corporation and Ramil Raymund Rances). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated 19 February 2021 and the Resolution 3 dated 11 March 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 164393. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) when it rendered its Decision 4 dated 28 June 2019 in NLRC LAC No. 11-004141-18 which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's (LA) Decision 5 dated 04 September 2018, dismissing petitioner Elmedio Velasco Castro, Jr.'s (Castro) Complaint 6 for constructive illegal dismissal, non-payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave (SIL), and illegal suspension, with prayer for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
The petition is unmeritorious.
The issues raised by Castro are factual in nature as they require the Court to re-evaluate the evidence on record. 7 It is settled that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put in issue and questions of facts will not be entertained. 8 After all, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, 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. 9
While there are exceptions to the rule that only questions of law are allowed in a Rule 45 petition, 10 none appears to be present in this case. The arguments raised by Castro were already passed upon in the uniform rulings of the labor tribunals and the CA.
The CA did not err in affirming the NLRC's acceptance of the documents presented by respondents Ace Promotion and Marketing Corporation and Ramil Raymund Rances evidencing payment of Castro's 13th month pay and SIL. Rule VII, Section 10 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, provides that the NLRC is not bound by the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law. Thus:
SECTION 10. TECHNICAL RULES NOT BINDING. — The rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling and the Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.
In any proceeding before the Commission, the parties may be represented by legal counsel but it shall be the duty of the [Chairperson], any Presiding Commissioner or Commissioner to exercise complete control of the proceedings at all stages.
To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, 11 however, legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the total monetary award of the LA, if still unpaid, reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 19 February 2021 and Resolution dated 11 March 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 164393 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the total monetary award of the Labor Arbiter, if still unpaid, shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."Gesmundo, C.J., on official business.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12-37.
2. Id. at 39-47. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale.
3. Id. at 49-50. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices Maria Filomena D. Singh (now a Member of this Court) and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale.
4. Id. at 77-90. Penned by Commissioner Mary Ann Plata-Daytia and concurred in by Commissioners Grace M. Venus and Leonard Vinz O. Ignacio.
5. Id. at 217-224. Penned by Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip, Jr.
6. Id. at 239-244.
7. SeePhilman Marine Agency, Inc. v. Cabanban, 715 Phil. 454, 471 (2013).
8. Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Bañas, 711 Phil. 576, 584 (2013).
9. Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission, 679 Phil. 394, 414 (2012).
10. Soliva v. Tanggol, G.R. No. 223429, 29 January 2020. The Court enumerated the following exceptions:
(a) [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (j) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (k) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
11. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).