SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256356. January 5, 2022.]
FRANCISCO GUAMOS III and ALVIN HILARIO DURAN, petitioners,vs. HJS MANPOWER SERVICES and HENRY M. POLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 January 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256356 (Francisco Guamos III and Alvin Hilario Duran v. HJS Manpower Services and Henry M. Polo). — It appearing from the records that a petition for review on certiorari1 was filed on May 10, 2021 which was received by the Office of the Clerk of Court, this Division only on December 14, 2021, the Court resolves to RECALL the Resolution 2 dated August 4, 2021 which resolved to inform the parties that no petition for review on certiorari has been filed in this case and that the judgment sought to be reviewed has now become final and executory, and declared the case closed and terminated.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the Resolution 3 dated September 30, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 165867 for failure of petitioners Francisco Guamos III and Alvin Hilario Duran (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in ruling that there was no illegal dismissal.
As correctly ruled by the CA, there was no illegal dismissal since petitioners failed to prove the fact of their dismissal. It is settled that in illegal dismissal cases, before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. 4 Logically, if there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to its legality or illegality. 5 Bare allegations of dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence, 6 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-49.
2.Id. at 26-27.
3.Id. at 55. Signed by Division Clerk of Court Celedonia M. Ogsimer.
4.Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 240254, July 24, 2019.
5.Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc., supra.
6. See Tacis v. Shields Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 234575, July 7, 2021.