FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241536. October 17, 2018.]
JOVIELYN REYES RAMOS, MARY ANN FERRER FLORES AND IVAN GOLDRECK NATIVIDAD UY, petitioners, vs.SOLAIRE RESORTS AND CASINO AND ENRIQUE RAZON, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 17, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241536 — Jovielyn Reyes Ramos, Mary Ann Ferrer Flores and Ivan Goldreck Natividad Uy, Petitioners, v. Solaire Resorts and Casino and Enrique Razon, Respondents.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its August 13, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 153372 to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
A careful consideration of the Petition further indicates petitioners' failure to show any cogent reason why the actions of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the CA, which have passed upon the same issues raised in the present Petition, should be reversed. Petitioners failed to show that their decisions are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence. SDAaTC
The Court finds no compelling reason to doubt the common findings of the three tribunals that petitioners were validly dismissed for just cause and with due process. As aptly observed by the Labor Arbiter, and affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, petitioners' absences were not disputed. Petitioners never refuted the fact of their habitual absenteeism. Indeed, respondents were able to present substantial evidence to support petitioners' numerous unjustified absences. On the other hand, petitioners failed to substantiate the existence of their leave credits in order to justify their absences.
Petitioners now contend that the CA committed grave error in holding that they were validly dismissed on the ground of alleged absences based on the evidence submitted by respondents consisting of computer print-outs that were unauthenticated and unsigned. They argued that these pieces of evidence were inadmissible in proving that they were guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty.
The contention is without merit. Suffice it to state that petitioners cannot on this late day object to the admission of evidence on the ground that the documents were unsigned and unauthenticated as the same cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Besides, petitioners never denied having incurred numerous unauthorized absences for years but merely justified the same by arguing that they were allowed leave credit benefits.
Evidently, petitioners' habitual absenteeism without leave constitutes gross negligence and is sufficient to justify termination of an employee. 1 Moreover, the finding that petitioners were afforded procedural due process is supported by substantial evidence. We accord not only respect, but even finality, to the factual findings and evaluation of evidence of the labor tribunals, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this case. acEHCD
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the August 13, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153372.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per S.O. No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member of the First Division per S.O. No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Challenge Socks Corp. v. Court of Appeals (Former First Division), 511 Phil. 4, 10-11 (2005).