FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245500. June 19, 2019.]
EDMUND LIM GERVACIO, petitioner, vs.PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 19, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245500 — Edmund Lim Gervacio, petitioner, vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time 1 seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period on March 22, 2019.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for: (a) having raised factual questions; (b) non-compliance with the required verification under Section 1, Rule 45, in relation with Section 4, Rule 7, of the Rules of Court; 2(c) non-compliance with the required certification against forum shopping under Section 4, Rule 45, in relation with Section 5, Rule 7, of the Rules of Court; 3 and (d) failure of petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner insists that respondent had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he committed theft of the latter's properties consisting of catering/cabin provisions. 4
The issues as to whether petitioner is indeed guilty of theft of respondent's catering/cabin provisions and whether he was illegallydismissedby respondent are clearly factual in nature. As such, these issues cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition where the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law that might have been committed by the lower courts. 5 Thus, the Petition should be denied in the absence of any exceptional circumstance 6 as to merit the Court's review of factual questions that have already been settled by the tribunals below.
Besides, it is settled that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court. Such findings, too, are given more weight when they are affirmed by the CA, as in this case. 7
As the CA correctly ruled, there was substantial evidence on record to prove that petitioner committed theft of respondent's properties: first, the two (2) bottles of Volupta Rosso wine confiscated from petitioner had the marking "specially bottled for Philippine Airlines" 8 and the "PAL logo" on the back side of the bottles; and second, the Manager of In-flight and Commissary Materials Purchasing Division of respondent also certified that the confiscated items were purchased by the company. 9 CAIHTE
Given these circumstances, the Court agrees with the CA's conclusion that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's Complaint for illegal dismissal.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the August 9, 2018 Decision and the February 22, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152333.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-7.
2. Affiant in the Verification of the Petition did not indicate his identification details exhibited before Notary Public Atty. Estela Y. Kintanar.
3. Affiant in the Certification on non-forum shopping did not indicate his identification details exhibited before the Notary Public Atty. Estela Y. Kintanar.
4.Rollo, p. 30.
5. See Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. People, 721 Phil. 760, 770 (2013) citing Remalante vs. Tibe, 241 Phil. 930 (1988).
6. See New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 499 Phil. 207, 212-213 (2005).
7.Felipe v. Danilo Divina Tamayo Konstract, Inc. (DDTKI), G.R. No. 218009, September 21, 2016, 804 SCRA 128, 135-136.
8.Rollo, p. 204.
9.Id. at 608.