SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236600. June 3, 2019.]
VERLEO CATERING AND/OR LEONY ANG, petitioner, vs.RONALDO M. PUEBLO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236600 (Verleo Catering and/or Leony Ang v. Ronaldo M. Pueblo)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the June 21, 2017 Decision 2 and the January 15, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148028 for failure of petitioner Verleo Catering and/or Leony Ang (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that respondent Ronaldo M. Pueblo (respondent) was a regular employee of petitioner and was illegally dismissed. EATCcI
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent's status as a regular employee is shown by his repeated engagement as a waiter over a span of several years which signifies the necessity and desirability of his services in petitioner's catering business. 4 Moreover, the engagement forms could not be considered as fixed-term contracts because they were not entered into by the parties on more or less equal terms, given that those forms were signed only after each catering event as a condition for the release of his salary and tips. 5 Being a regular employee, respondent could be dismissed only for just or authorized causes, 6 which was not present in this case. The CA also correctly found that respondent's dismissal for his supposed single act of consuming food intended for the guests does not amount to serious misconduct that would merit outright dismissal. 7 Hence, respondent is entitled to backwages including monetary benefits plus separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-29.
2.Id. at 35-47. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.
3.Id. at 48-48-A.
4. See id. at 41.
5. See id. See also GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga, 722 Phil. 161, 171 (2013).
6.Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 749 Phil. 388, 440 (2014).
7. See rollo, pp. 44-45.