FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215525. February 25, 2015.]
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, petitioner, vs. NUBE-STANDARD CHARTERED BANK SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 25, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215525 (Standard Chartered Bank v. Nube-Standard Chartered Bank Supervisors Association). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and the respondent's opposition with manifestation re: petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for review is NOTED and GRANTED.
The respondent's motion and manifestation, stating that the dilatory tactics of petitioner in the collective bargaining negotiations between the parties should be stopped, for reasons stated therein; and the petitioner's manifestation and omnibus motion, submitting a compact disc containing the soft copy of the petition for review on certiorari and its annexes and the declaration which was filed to the Court via registered mail on January 14, 2015 are both NOTED.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the August 26, 2014 Decision 1 and November 13, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 134875 for failure of petitioner Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that its employees, namely, Nelsie Abu, Carl Joseph Babor, 3 Ricky Roger Santos, Judith Luna, Maricar Fajardo, Rowena Hermogenes, Rio Talisic, and Joan Kristine Morales, as well as Jeffrey Perez, Mary Joy Macaraig, Esyl Talingting, and Mica Raymundo were not managerial and confidential employees, respectively. As such, they were eligible to vote in the certification election conducted to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of SCB's supervisory employees. cHESAD
Notably, the core issue raised in the instant petition, i.e., whether or not the subject employees are managerial and confidential employees, is factual in nature, hence, beyond the pale of judicial review under a Rule 45 petition where only pure questions of law, not of fact, may be resolved. 4 Moreover, it is well-settled that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Department of Labor and Employment Secretary, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect in view of their expertise in their respective field, 5 as in this case.
The petitioner is hereby required to SUBMIT within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed petition for review on certiorari and annexes pursuant to the Resolution dated February 25, 2014 in A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 79-89. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
2. Id. at 91-92.
3. "Barbor" in some parts of the record.
4. See Clientlogic Philippines, Inc. v. Castro, G.R. No. 186070, April 11, 2011, 647 SCRA 524.
5. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. The Lepanto Capataz Union, G.R. No. 157086, February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 11, 26.