ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257728. March 28, 2022.]
JENNIFER B. NOFIES, petitioner, vs.COMODO SECURITY PHILIPPINES, INC., MARK MARTILLAN, AND CYZEL MARIE SANTIAGO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 March 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257728 (Jennifer B. Nofies v. Comodo Security Philippines, Inc., Mark Martillan, and Cyzel Marie Santiago). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated December 17, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated October 25, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 160112, for failure of petitioner Jennifer B. Nofies (petitioner) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the National Labor Relations Commission's rulings finding her to be validly dismissed for Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty.
As the CA correctly held, petitioner's habitual tardiness and absenteeism were forms of neglect of duty which violated the company's rules and accordingly, justified her termination from employment. 4 '[G]ross neglect of duty becomes serious in character due to frequency of instances x x x. Indeed, there can be no good faith in intentionally and habitually incurring unexcusable absences.' 5 Here, petitioner failed to advance any acceptable reasons to explain her many absences which evince a clear disregard of her duties as an employee, especially since the labor tribunal and the CA unanimously found that petitioner failed to prove her allegation that she was subjected to unbearable working conditions. 6 Moreover, an examination of the instant petition shows that petitioner is asking this Court to re-evaluate the evidence presented, which is beyond the purview of a Rule 45 petition. 7 It is settled that factual findings of labor tribunals, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded not only with respect, but even with finality, and are thus binding on the Court, 8 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Dated December 20, 2021; rollo, pp. 12-30.
2.Id. at 33-40. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Robeniol and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4.Id. at 38.
5.Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company, 623 Phil. 416, 423 (2009).
6. See rollo, p. 38.
7. See Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 265 (2017).
8. See Nahas v. Olarte, 734 Phil. 569, 580 (2014).