FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241045. October 8, 2018.]
JACINTO RETUYA, PRISCILA B. VALE, EMERITA DEIPARINE DAYSON AS THE HEIR OF ABDON DAYSON AND ELEUTERIO ENSALADA, petitioners, vs. DELIA P. MURILLO, CHRISTIAN V. MURILLO, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANTONIO AND DULCE MURILLO, ELADIO M. LAO, AND JEREMIAS L. MURILLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 8, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241045 — Jacinto Retuya, Priscila B. Vale, Emerita Deiparine Dayson as the Heir of Abdon Dayson and Eleuterio Ensalada, Petitioners, v. Delia P. Murillo, Christian V. Murillo, administrator of the estate of Antonio and Dulce Murillo, Eladio M. Lao, and Jeremias L. Murillo, Respondents.
Acting on petitioners' Motion for Extension of Period to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to GRANT them a period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file their petition.
After a careful review of the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the Petition for Review on Certiorari of the May 12, 2017 Decision and June 18, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04265-MIN, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the ruling of the CA which affirmed the Order dated August 10, 2015 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 17, denying petitioners' claims against the Estate of Antonio B. Murillo ("Murillo"). The issues raised by petitioners before this Court were mere reiterations of their arguments before the CA and the RTC which had already been exhaustively addressed in the assailed rulings. Petitioners failed to raise any new issues or arguments which merit a review of the appellate court's findings. cSEDTC
Relying on this Court's Decision dated August 5, 2003 in G.R. No. 148848, petitioners insist that Murillo was personally liable for the monetary awards granted to them for their illegal dismissal from Insular Builders, Inc. ("Insular"), the corporation which was previously owned and managed by Murillo. However, a meticulous examination of the August 5, 2003 Decision reveals that there was no finding that Murillo was made solidarily liable for petitioners' monetary claims. In fact, the only participation of Murillo in the termination of petitioners, as indicated in the Decision, was his submission of the Dismissal Report to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as then President of the corporation. Furthermore, there was no declaration of bad faith or malice on the part of Murillo in any of the rulings in the labor dispute which would have made him solidarily liable with Insular as one of its corporate officers.
We agree with the RTC when it ruled that the Estate of Murillo may only be made liable to petitioners if and when it is clearly shown that Murillo was declared solidarily liable with Insular for the payment of said monetary claims. Unfortunately, this was never established by petitioners.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed May 12, 2017 Decision and June 18, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04265-MIN.
Petitioners or their authorized representative may claim from the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division their excess payment for the legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under Official Receipt No. 0222885-SC-EP dated August 20, 2018.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., on official travel.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court