Orcullo, Jr. v. De La Salle University Dasmariñas

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252653. September 30, 2020.]

NORBERTO AVILA ORCULLO, JR., petitioner,vs. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY DASMARIÑAS AND BRO. AUGUSTINE BOQUER, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 September 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252653 (Norberto Avila Orcullo, Jr. v. De La Salle University Dasmariñas and Bro. Augustine Boquer). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 1 dated October 23, 2019 and the Resolution 2 dated June 8, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 157336 which found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) when it upheld in its Decision 3 dated May 11, 2018 and its Resolution 4 dated June 29, 2018 in NLRC LAC No. 02-000512-18, the Decision 5 dated November 15, 2017 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC Case No. RABIV-09-01414-16-C, which dismissed the complaint for underpayment of salaries, retirement benefits and other money claims, and unfair labor practice filed by Norberto Avila Orcullo, Jr. (petitioner) against respondents De La Salle University-Dasmariñas (DLSUD) and its President, Bro. Augustine Boquer.

Petitioner elevated this case to the Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The use of this mode of appeal empowers the Court to review errors of law committed by the CA. It is not the function of this Court, however, to re-examine the evidence submitted by the parties unless the findings of the CA are not supported by the evidence on record or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. 6

When there is a concurrence of both the decisions of the NLRC and the LA, courts ought to be more prudent in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction in order to allow greater stability in the market place because, after all, labor law and policy mandate speedy, efficient, and effective resolution of employer-employee controversies by specialized labor tribunals who have expertise on the matter and whose decisions must, as much as possible carry finality.

Hence, the Court ruled in Bugaoisan v. Owi Group Manila7 that:

The Court is precluded from doing an independent review of this factual matter since it has already been decided by the labor tribunals, unless the CA, in the certiorari petition, ascertains that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. Absent such determination, factual findings of the NLRC are deemed conclusive and binding even on this Court. 8

In Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association v. NLRC, 9 the Court explained:

Settled is the rule that the findings of the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. In a petition for review on certiorari, this Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous. Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases. 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 great respect but even finality. They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. We find none of these exceptions in the present case. 10

Verily, the Court considers the findings of fact of the LA, as affirmed by the NLRC, final and conclusive, in the absence of proof that the latter acted without, in excess of, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 11

Moreover, the arguments raised by petitioner in the Petition for Review are similar to the arguments previously considered and decided upon by the LA, NLRC and the CA. Petitioner failed to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision.

In light of the foregoing, the Court rules that the CA did not commit a reversible error when it found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the NLRC.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the Decision dated October 23, 2019 and the Resolution dated June 8, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 157336 which found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the National Labor Relations Commission.

SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jabob, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring; rollo, pp. 48-59.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jabob, with Associate Justices Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring; id. at 61-68.

3. Penned by NLRC Commissioner Dominador B. Medroso, Jr., with Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog III and Erlinda T. Agus concurring; id. at 107-128.

4.Id. at 130-132.

5. Penned by Danna M. Castillon; id. at 298-309.

6.Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 171, 180 (1996).

7. 825 Phil. 764 (2018).

8.Id. at 777.

9. 567 Phil. 26 (2008).

10.Id. at 38-39.

11.Bugaoisan v. Owi Group Manila, supra.