THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 260460. July 6, 2022.]
NISSAN CAR LEASE PHILS., INC., petitioner,vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER CLARADEL C. JAVIER-ROTOR, and DIANA MARQUEZ VIVO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 6, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 260460 (Nissan Car Lease Phils., Inc., Petitioner vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Arbiter Claradel C. Javier-Rotor, and Diana Marquez Vivo, Respondents) — Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 the Court resolves to DENY it for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision 2 dated January 25, 2021 and Resolution 3 dated February 28, 2022 in CA-G.R. SP No. 158620. The CA correctly held that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it found that Nissan Car Lease Phils., Inc. (petitioner) terminated Diana Marquez Vivo's (respondent) employment illegally. 4
To begin with, it bears stressing that the Court is not a trier of facts such that it generally does not entertain questions of fact in a petition for review on certiorari. 5 Moreover, as a rule, the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC are accorded not only respect but also finality because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these agencies from handling matters under their specialized jurisdiction. 6 Considering the foregoing, it is evident, even at side glance, that the Petition for Review on Certiorari7 should be denied outright. The labor tribunals and the CA were unanimous in finding that respondent's dismissal from employment is illegal as petitioner's loss of trust and confidence against respondent was not founded on clearly established facts. Respondent's alleged drug use had been negated by the second drug test and the subsequent hair test which confirmed that respondent is negative for drug use. 8
Hence, respondent's dismissal from employment is illegal. 9
Anent the award for damages, it must be stressed that not every illegally dismissed employee is entitled to damages, as it is only recoverable when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor. 10 Exemplary damages, on the other hand, is only granted "when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner." 11 In this case, respondent's dismissal, although considered illegal, was neither without basis nor done in a malevolent manner since petitioner dismissed respondent based on an honest but mistaken belief that it had a just cause to dismiss her from employment for her alleged drug use. Petitioner's act having a semblance of reason, the Court holds respondent not entitled to either moral damages or exemplary damages.
Also, the Court imposes legal interest on the monetary awards at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until its full payment.
Lastly, the petition suffers from technical infirmities or defects which further warrants its denial, viz.: (1) failure to submit the soft copy of the petition as required under the Rules on E-Filing (A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC) and the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC); and (2) failure to state the material dates of receipt of the assailed decision and filing of the motion for reconsideration in violation of Section 4 (b), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 25, 2021 and Resolution dated February 28, 2022 in CA-G.R. SP No. 158620 are AFFIRMED with modification in that: (1) the award for moral and exemplary damages are DELETED; and (2) the total monetary award of the NLRC in favor of respondent Diana Marquez Vivo shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-24.
2. Id. at 26-39. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Carlito B. Calpatura.
3. Id. at 41-42. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Carlito B. Calpatura.
4. Id. at 38.
5. Every Nation Language Institute (ENLI) v. Dela Cruz, G.R No. 225100, February 19, 2020.
6. Monsanto Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 230609-10, August 27, 2020.
7. Rollo, pp. 3-24.
8. Id. at 47-48.
9. Malcaba v. ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc., 832 Phil. 460 (2018).
10. See Bayview Management Consultants, Inc. v. Pre, G.R. No. 220170, August 19, 2020.
11. Id., citing Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera, Jr., 820 Phil. 653, 674 (2017).