FIRST DIVISION
[UDK No. 16793. March 3, 2021.]
RITCHIE R. MANGULABNAN AND REYNALDO R. DELA PEÑA, petitioners,vs. OBRI-ONEL BUILDER RESOURCES, INCORPORATED AND NELIA DELA TORRE TIU, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 3, 2021which reads as follows:
"UDK 16793 (Ritchie R. Mangulabnan and Reynaldo R. Dela Peña, Petitioners, v. Obri-Onel Builder Resources, Incorporated and Nelia Dela Torre Tiu, Respondents). — After a review of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition.
We take note that while petitioners filed their petition as one for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), it appears that the said petition alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in issuing its assailed Decision 1 dated 15 November 2019 and Resolution 2 dated 11 November 2020. These allegations, while cognizable in a certiorari petition under Rule 65 of the Rules, are not proper in a Rule 45 petition. Moreover, the petition suffers from insufficient and defective verification for failure of petitioners to allege that the same is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation pursuant to Section 4, Rule 7 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 3
Even if this Court disregards the noted procedural infirmities, the petition must still be denied. Petitioners have not shown reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
The Petition calls for re-evaluation of evidence which is not appropriate under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court considering that this Court's jurisdiction under such rule is limited only to errors of law. 4 And although jurisprudence has provided several exceptions to these rules, exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and proved by the parties so this court may evaluate and review the facts of the case. Parties praying that this Court review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals must demonstrate and prove that the case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule. They have the burden of proving to this Court that a review of the factual findings is necessary. Mere assertion and claim that the case falls under the exceptions do not suffice. 5
Moreover, 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 Court of Appeals. Such findings deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed. 6
In here, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA were consistent in their factual findings that petitioners were not constructively dismissed. To reiterate, this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases; only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the CA. Factual questions are for the labor tribunal to resolve. In addition, findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies such as the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court. 7
In view of Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 8 however, this Court imposes interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the total monetary award of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, from the date of finality of the NLRC's Decision dated 16 March 2017 until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 15 November 2019 and Resolution dated 11 November 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151613 are AFFIRMED. The monetary awards of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the NLRC's Decision dated 16 March 2017 until fully satisfied.
SO ORDERED."
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. 112-123; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
2.Id. at 49-50.
3. A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC.
4.Gatan vs. Vinarao, G.R. No. 205912, 18 October 2017 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro].
5.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167 (2016); G.R. No. 171722, 11 January 2016 [Per J. Leonen].
6.Diversified Security Agency, Inc. v. Bautista, 632 Phil. 301 (2010); G.R. No. 152234, 15 April 2010 [Per J. Peralta].
7.Guerrero v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 222523, 03 October 2018 [Per J. Peralta].
8. 716 Phil. 267 (2013); G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013 [Per J. Peralta].