Concentrix Daksh Services Philippines Corp. v. Palacio

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242673. January 7, 2019.]

CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. CATHERINE M. PALACIO, ANABEL N. PASCUAL, JOCELYN F. POBLETE, ABDULMAJID J. SABDANI, ZANDRO R. MONTANO, DENNIS T. CASUYON, DEXTER D. FLESTADO, AND MARIA EDEN O. MAGANTE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 January 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242673 (Concentrix Daksh Services Philippines Corporation v. Catherine M. Palacio, Anabel N. Pascual, Jocelyn F. Poblete, Abdulmajid J. Sabdani, Zandro R. Montano, Dennis T. Casuyon, Dexter D. Flestado, and Maria Eden O. Magante)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the June 28, 2018 Decision 2 and the October 5, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154517 for failure of petitioner Concentrix Daksh Services Philippines Corporation (Concentrix) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in declaring that respondents Catherine M. Palacio, Anabel N. Pascual, Jocelyn F. Poblete, Abdulmajid J. Sabdani, Zandro R. Montano, Dennis T. Casuyon, Dexter D. Flestado, and Maria Eden O. Magante (respondents) were illegally dismissed.

As correctly ruled by the CA, Concentrix failed to sufficiently prove that respondents were apprised of the reasonable standards set for their regularization at the time of their engagement; and more importantly, show how these standards were applied in respondents' case. 4 Notably, while Concentrix presented copies of respondents' employment contracts which state, albeit generally, the expected areas for evaluation (e.g., communication skills, knowledge, skills application, attendance and tardiness, etc.), the same appear to be unsigned. 5 At any rate, no proof was presented to convincingly show that the regularization standards, supposedly contained in the employment contracts, were adequately explained to them. 6 As such, respondents were regular employees whose dismissal, absent a valid cause, was illegal. Considering that these findings and conclusion of the CA, which affirmed those of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, are supported by evidence, they are thus, binding and conclusive upon this Court. 7 In this regard, it must be emphasized that the burden rests on the employer to prove that the dismissal was valid, failing in which, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal, 8 as the Court now finds in this case. Finally, the issues raised in this petition are factual in nature which are not proper for a Rule 45 petition, 9 where only questions of law are allowed. 10

SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)

Very truly yours,

MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 11-37.

2. Id. at 43-55. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring.

3. Id. at 77-78.

4. See id. at 50.

5. See id. at 52.

6. See id. at 53.

7. See Tatel v. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc., 755 Phil. 171, 182 (2015).

8. Sec Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. v. David, 798 Phil. 195, 203 (2016). See also Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Dawal, 781 Phil. 474, 508-509 (2016).

9. Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — x x x The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth[.] (Emphasis supplied)

10. See Tatel v. JLFP Investigation Security Agency, Inc., supra note 55, at 181.