ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[UDK-16116. April 4, 2018.]
ARNEL A. REYNA, petitioner,vs. FORT KNOX SECURITY SERVICE CORPORATION AND RENE T. RICARDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows:
"UDK-16116- (Arnel A. Reyna, Petitioner, v. Fort Knox Security Service Corporation and Rene T. Ricardo, Respondents.) — After a judicious review of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in ruling that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed.
Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts. Our judicial review of adjudications of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the labor officials' findings rested. 1 As such, the findings of fact and conclusions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and are deemed binding on the Court as long as the findings of fact and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. 2 We do not deviate from such bindingness in the absence of a clear showing by the petitioner that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, were bereft of sufficient substantiation.
It is also a well-settled rule that the jurisdiction of the Court in an appeal taken under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of errors of law, and cannot extend to the review of errors of fact unless the factual findings of the labor officials and the CA are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment of the CA was based on a gross misapprehension of facts. 3 We reiterate in this connection that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC upon matters within their legal competence and expertise, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon the parties as well as on this Court. 4
The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA fully passed upon and resolved the matter of whether or not the petitioner had been illegally dismissed. They all found no evidence establishing that he had been dismissed or illegally prevented from returning to work. As such, his claim remained unsubstantiated. Verily, the relief order given to him to instruct him to leave his assignment at the Antipolo Triangle Mall Security Detachment and report to the main office for briefing and orientation did not amount to the termination of his employment. 5 Without him having been dismissed, it would be premature to determine the legality or illegality of the re-assignment. 6
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig (AISFB)-ALU v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140150, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 483, 496.
2.Progressive Development Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 138826, October 30, 2000, 344 SCRA 512, 516.
3.Magellan Capital Management Corporation v. Zosa, G.R. No. 129916, March 26, 2001, 355 SCRA 157, 168.
4.Republic v. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc., G.R. No. 147096, January 15, 2002, 373 SCRA 316, 346-347.
5.Exodus International Construction v. Biscocho, G.R. No. 166109, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 76, 88.
6.Id.