FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241619. April 10, 2019.]
MANILA CORDAGE COMPANY, petitioner, vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION [6TH DIVISION] AND ANTHONY M. AGULLANA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241619 (Manila Cordage Company v. National Labor Relations Commission [6th Division] and Anthony M. Agullana, et al.)
After a review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its March 21, 2018 Decision 1 and the August 16, 2018 Resolution 2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 148414, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in labor cases is restricted to a review of whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion and deciding other jurisdictional errors of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and not on the basis of the correctness of its decision based on the merits. 3 Further, petitions under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are limited to questions of law. HTcADC
Here, petitioner's assigned errors require a re-appreciation and re-examination of the evidence. As such, it raises issues evidentiary and factual in nature. Though the Court admits a few exceptions, 4 none are present in this case. Further, both the NLRC and the CA have the same factual findings, i.e., the appeal was filed out of time since petitioner already received a copy of the Labor Arbiter's Decision in RAB-IV-12-02068-14-L on May 25, 2016, instead of June 8, 2016. The Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings and conclusion of the courts a quo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."Del Castillo, J., on official business. Jardeleza, J., on official leave. CAIHTE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 321-329; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.
2.Id. at 330-331.
3. See Diamond Taxi, et al. v. Llamas, Jr., 729 Phil. 364, 374-375 (2014).
4. See Sering v. CA, et al., 422 Phil. 467, 471-472 (2401).