THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202401. August 28, 2013.]
EDUARDO S. PEDROSO, petitioner, vs. ENLIN STEEL PHILS. CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 28, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202401 (Eduardo S. Pedroso v. Enlin Steel Phils. Corporation). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated February 27, 2012, denying the petition, and its Resolution 2 dated June 26, 2012, denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, be reversed and set aside.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent. The latter countered that it did not dismiss petitioner, rather, petitioner's work contract for the particular project had expired. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiter's Decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but on March 15, 2004, the NLRC dismissed petitioner's appeal for petitioner's failure to verify under oath his Memorandum of Appeal and for failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal was denied in a Resolution dated May 28, 2004, where the NLRC also touched on the merits of the petition, stating that "[w]e fully concur with the Labor Arbiter when he ruled that complainant was a contractual employee of respondent who was not illegally dismissed." 3 IDaEHS
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. On February 27, 2012, the CA rendered its Decision affirming the NLRC's dismissal of the appeal.
In a petition for review on certiorari before this Court, petitioner maintains that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC Resolution.
The Court finds the petition devoid of merit.
The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA all made the factual finding that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. They all ruled that petitioner was a project employee. Petitioner should be reminded of the oft-repeated rule that in petitions for review on certiorari, the jurisdiction of this Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law or jurisdiction. This Court cannot be tasked to analyze or weigh evidence all over again as the evaluation of facts is best left to the trial and appellate courts. Hence, the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding on this Court. 4
Moreover, the CA properly held that the NLRC acted correctly in not relaxing the application of its rules of procedures after finding no merit in petitioner's claim of illegal dismissal. STcaDI
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with Associate Justices Vicente S. E. Veloso and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
2.Id.
3.Rollo, p. 62.
4.Gan vs. Galderma Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013; Padalhin vs. Laviña, G.R. No. 183026, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 549.