FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241888. January 10, 2019.]
STYLEWORKS GARMENT EXPORT AND POORAN DOWLANI, petitioners,vs. ROWENA BENTOR, RUDY BALACTA, ELMER LAPERSON AND ANNALIE BARDILLAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 10, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241888 — Styleworks Garment Export and Pooran Dowlani v. Rowena Bentor, Rudy Balacta, Elmer Laperson and Annalie Bardillas
Petitioners' Motions for Extension of Time for a total period of 25 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari are GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Essentially, petitioners argue that they should not have been ordered to pay respondents separation pay and instead allowed to find equivalent positions for them. Petitioners must, however, be reminded that they clearly stated in their Opposition to respondents' Motion for Execution filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) that taking petitioners back as workers would be prejudicial to the company because they have already filled up their former positions. They did not mention therein that it was possible for them to find or create positions equivalent to respondents' former positions as to accommodate them, thus, leaving the impression that they could no longer take respondents back. However, when they were ordered to instead pay respondents their separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners made a turn around by asserting that they should have first been ordered by the LA to find equivalent positions for respondents. Clearly, petitioners were taking inconsistent positions to suit their purpose. It bears to state that "[a] party will not be allowed to make a mockery of justice by taking inconsistent positions which, if allowed, would result in brazen deception." 1
Besides, petitioners failed to show any cogent reason why the actions of the LA, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Court of Appeals (CA) which have passed upon the same issue should be reversed. They failed to demonstrate that their factual findings are not based on substantial evidence or that their decisions are contrary to applicable law or jurisprudence. As a rule, the Court accords not only respect, but even finality, to the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this case.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed May 8, 2018 Decision 2 and August 31, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144933.
Further, the Court NOTES petitioners' Manifestation dated October 23, 2018. The Special Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission are DELETED as party respondents in this case pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Depositario v. Hervias, 206 Phil. 651, 653 (1983).
2.Rollo, pp. 256-269; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales.
3.Id. at 276-277.