FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213973. October 8, 2014.]
ALDRIN A. DONAIRE, AGUSPINA A. INOCENCIO, AIDA CARISMA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MARSMAN ESTATE PLANTATION, INC./ANTERO SISON [PRESIDENT], ALBERTA B. MALINAO [HR MANAGER], AND JUANITO B. BUNCAL [HR GROUP SUPERINTENDENT], respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 8, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213973 (Aldrin A. Donaire, Aguspina A. Inocencio, Aida Carisma, et al. v. Marsman Estate Plantation, Inc./Antero Sison [President], Alberta B. Malinao [HR Manager], and Juanito B. Buncal [HR Group Superintendent]). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the May 19, 2014 Decision 1 and July 31, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05527 for failure of Aldrin A. Donaire, Aguspina A. Inocencio, Aida Carisma, et al. (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in declaring that they were not illegally dismissed from their employment with Marsman Estate Plantation, Inc. (MEPI).
The factual findings of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court. 3 Petitioners were dismissed for just cause having committed several violations against MEPI by causing unwarranted disruption of its operations, which brought pecuniary damage and injury to the latter. The fact that they are agrarian reform beneficiaries of the land they are working on did not exculpate them from their obligations as employees of MEPI to which they must yield obedience and compliance with company rules and policies. Since the employer cannot be compelled to retain workers found guilty of maliciously committing acts detrimental to its interest, 4 petitioners were validly terminated after they were notified of the charges against them but failed to proffer any explanation in controvertion of said charges. Instead, they effectively admitted the commission of illegal acts by asserting that they have every right to do so being the legal beneficiaries of the land. 5aAHDIc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 64-82. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.
2. Id. at 60-61.
3. See Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna, G.R. No. 172086, December 3, 2012, 686 SCRA 676, 684; citations omitted.
4. Rollo, p. 94. See NLRC Decision dated October 31, 2012, citing Lagatic v. NLRC, 349 Phil. 172, 180 (1998).
5. Id. at 97.