THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231275. March 21, 2018.]
FILOMENO C. PLAZUELO, petitioner,vs. ASIAN SPORTS APPAREL (PHILS.), INC., PIO EUGENIO B. COLAYCO AND CLEMENTE B. COLAYCO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows: DHITCc
"G.R. No. 231275 (Filomeno C. Plazuelo, Petitioner, v. Asian Sports Apparel (Phils.), Inc., Pio Eugenio B. Colayco and Clemente B. Colayco, Respondents.) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari on the ground of the failure of the petitioner to thereby sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in promulgating the assailed decision on May 19, 2016 holding that the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents had been terminated because of his voluntary resignation. 1
As a general rule, points of law, theories, and arguments cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and will not be considered by this Court; otherwise, a denial of the respondent's right to due process will result. 2 Conformably with the rule, the petitioner cannot now assert that he had been made to resign "due to conflict of management style which became unbearable on the part of the petitioner" considering that he did not allege or raise the same as an issue at the start. Indeed, the reason why he did not raise the same as issue was his own declaration to the effect that he had submitted his letter of resignation in order to accept an offer to work abroad. As such, his claim of having been constructively dismissed was negated.
The petitioner further claims that the CA erred in finding and ruling that the parties had only agreed to retain the petitioner's employment until the employer could find a suitable replacement for him. Suffice it to say that the Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari unless exceptional circumstances that warrant the review of errors of fact existed, 3 such as: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admission of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. 4
Although the limitation to errors of law is not absolute, the petitioner has not sufficiently presented any circumstance that puts his case under any of the recognized exceptions.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on May 19, 2016, without pronouncement on cost of suit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 35-47; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
2.Figuera v. Ang, G.R. No. 204264, June 29, 2016, 795 SCRA 175, 183.
3.The University of the Immaculate Conception v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 181146, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 608, 616.
4.Kay Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162472, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 544, 553-554.