FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237101. October 8, 2018.]
VICTORY LINER, INC., petitioner,vs. HELBERT EJAN, 1respondent.
[G.R. No. 237115. October 8, 2018.]
HELBERT E. EJAN, petitioner, vs. VICTORY LINER CORPORATION/JOHNNY HERNANDEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 8, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237101 — Victory Liner, Inc., Petitioner, v. Helbert Ejan,Respondent, and G.R. No. 237115 — Helbert E. Ejan, Petitioner, v. Victory Liner Corporation/Johnny Hernandez, Respondents.
The Court resolves to CONSOLIDATE the present Petitions for Review on Certiorari.
After a judicious review of the allegations in the present Petitions for Review on Certiorari, and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court further resolves to DENY the said petition in G.R. No. 237101 for lack of a valid Affidavit of Service as the Affidavit of Service attached was notarized on February 19, 2018 prior to the actual date of posting of the copy of the instant Petition on the Court of Appeals (CA) and the adverse party on February 26, 2018; in any event, both Petitions in G.R. No. 237101 and in G.R. No. 237115 failed to show any reversible error on the part of the CA in rendering the assailed February 22, 2017 Decision 2 and January 23, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 144185. aDSIHc
In its Petition for Review on Certiorari, 3 Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) claims that Helbert E. Ejan (Ejan) neither alleged nor presented evidence in any of his pleadings before the Labor Arbiter (LA) that he rendered 16-hour workdays. Furthermore, VLI posits that the Attendance Report and Certificate of Compensation Payment/Tax Withheld for the years 2012 and 2013, albeit submitted only on appeal, sufficiently belied Ejan's claim of underpayment.
On the other hand, Ejan, in his Petition for Review on Certiorari, 4 insists that his dismissal was illegal as it was not for a just or authorized cause. He also avers that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh considering his more than 10 years of employment and his sufficient explanation regarding his absences.
In order to resolve the said issues put forth, however, the Court must once again delve into the factual antecedents of the case. Time and again, the Court has held that only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions filed under Rule 45; questions of fact are not entertained and the Court does not re-examine or reevaluate evidence anew. The principle that this Court is not a trier of facts applies with greater force in labor cases. The factual findings of labor officials, who are believed to be experts in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are usually conferred immense weight and in some cases, even finality.
Here, the CA shared the same opinion with the LA that respondent was legally terminated from employment but was entitled to salary differential considering the number of hours worked and the amount the latter received therefor. After a review of the case, the Court agrees with the CA's determination of grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC when it deleted the above-mentioned award. The CA's consequent substitution of its own ruling over that of the NLRC's was proper given that the CA may make its own independent evaluation of the facts, even if it may be contrary to that of the LA and the NLRC especially where the contesting party's claim appears to be clearly meritorious, or where the broader interest of justice and public policy so requires. 5
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed February 22, 2017 Decision and January 23, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144185.
The National Labor Relations Commission is DROPPED as party-respondent in G.R. 237115 pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Memorandum Report dated September 10, 2018 of this Court's Acting Division Clerk of Court, First Division; and the petitioner's compliance with the Resolution dated June 11, 2018/Manifestation are NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., on official travel. ETHIDa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as Herber Esong Ejan in some parts of the SC rollo.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
3.Id. at pp. 8-26.
4.SC Rollo G.R. No. 237115, pp. 9-19.
5.FLP Enterprises, Inc. v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 198093, July 28, 2014, 739 Phil. 763, 770.