FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239495. August 8, 2018.]
BOBETH VERGARA TADEO, petitioner, vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. AND SUNITA LAKHANPAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239495 — Bobeth Vergara Tadeo v. WNS Global Services Philippines, Inc. and Sunita Lakhanpal.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's a) motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari and b) motion to admit attached petition for review on certiorari.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly further resolves to DENY the same for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 142828. cHDAIS
It has been a time-honored principle that "bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence." 1 We quote, with approval, the CA's findings, to wit:
x x x Here, petitioner did not adduce any competent evidence to prove that his poor performance rating and workload were intentionally used by the respondents to force him to resign. Neither was the alleged utterance made by respondents' HR officer substantiated and proved to be directed at petitioner. More importantly, petitioner failed to establish the fact of his dismissal when he failed to prove that his decision to resign was involuntary. Apart from his self-serving and uncorroborated allegations, no evidence of constructive dismissal was presented. x x x 2 (emphasis supplied)
That petitioner immediately filed a complaint for constructive dismissal did not dispense with the requirement of proving the allegations stated in the complaint.
Petitioner's prayer that respondents pay him his tax refund and leave conversion totaling P57,206.63 requires a review of evidentiary matters that are beyond the ambit of the instant petition for review. It may be well to note the CA's observation, viz.:
x x x Nevertheless, petitioner is not precluded from claiming his tax refund and leave conversion with the respondents considering that in the latters' position paper, respondents stated that it "has already computed complainants final pay and is willing to pay the same, subject to the respondent's turn-around time for its check preparations, should complainant be willing to accept the same." 3
However, this Court finds the award of attorney's fees unwarranted. The Labor Arbiter's justification, i.e., "this case is a forced litigation, or else a lawyer's affair," can hardly be called such. As we have ruled in Benedicto v. Villaflores: 4
It is settled that the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule; counsel's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. Attorney's fees, as part of damages, are not necessarily equated to the amount paid by a litigant to a lawyer. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter; while in its extraordinary concept, they may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. Attorney's fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. As such, it is necessary for the court to make findings of fact and law that would bring the case within the ambit of these enumerated instances to justify the grant of such award, and in all cases it must be reasonable. 5 EATCcI
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision dated January 3, 2018 and Resolution dated May 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142828 by deleting the award of attorney's fees in favor of petitioner for lack of factual and legal bases.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Go v. Court of Appeals, 474 Phil. 404, 413 (2004); Dator v. University of Santo Tomas, 532 Phil. 386, 397 (2006); Vicente v. Court of Appeals, 557 Phil. 777, 787 (2007); Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club v. NLRC, 570 Phil. 535, 550 (2008).
2.Rollo, p. 21.
3.Id. at 22.
4. 646 Phil. 733 (2010).
5.Id. at 741-742.