SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257856. January 3, 2022.]
CORNELIO N. TOLO, petitioner,vs. MARCO POLO PLAZA CEBU/CATHAY INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES CORP., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 January 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257856 (Cornelio N. Tolo v. Marco Polo Plaza Cebu/Cathay International Resources Corp.). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated January 30, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated May 27, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 11307 for failure of petitioner Cornelio N. Tolo (Tolo) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the labor tribunals' common conclusion that he was dismissed for just cause by respondents Marco Polo Plaza Cebu (Marco Polo Hotel) and/or Cathay International Resources Corporation (collectively referred to as respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, Tolo's dismissal for just cause was valid, given the 'totality of infractions' or the number of violations he committed during the period of his employment as sous chef in Marco Polo Hotel. Records reveal that petitioner was found guilty of various transgressions and that despite several warnings and constant reminders, he continued to be remiss in his duties and responsibilities. Time and again, the Court has put emphasis on the right of an employer to exercise its management prerogative, which includes the right to dismiss its erring employees. As long as its exercise of judgment is in good faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of dealing or circumventing the rights of employees under the laws or valid agreements, such exercise will be upheld. 4 Moreover, it bears stressing that the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty, 5 which were properly observed by the labor tribunals and the CA, in this case. Lastly, it is settled that findings of fact of the labor tribunals, as affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court 6 and are not to be disturbed unless they fall under the recognized exceptions, 7 which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 38-57.
2.Id. at 8-17. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.
3.Id. at 24-28. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and Bautista G. Corpin, Jr., concurring.
4.Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. v. KMM Katipunan and Esponga, 815 Phil. 425, 438 (2017).
5.Villanueva v. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc., G.R. No. 227175, January 8, 2020, citing Merin v. NLRC, 590 Phil. 596, 602-603 (2008).
6. See Acevedo v. Advantar Company, Inc., 511 Phil. 279, 287 (2005).
7. See Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 789 (2011).