G.R. No. 160303 - G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VS. TITO S. INFANTE, MELOR BORBO, AND DANILO CASTAÑEDA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , based on the foregoing, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE . The assailed Resolution and Order of the National Labor Relations Commission are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The matter is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of backwages and such other monetary benefits awarded in accordance with this Decision. [16] The appellate court scored the Labor Arbiter because the latter failed to categorically rule on the validity of respondents' dismissal and instead stood content in simply stating that respondents should not have been meted out the severest penalty of dismissal for their inadequacies and wrongful actions. [17] The appellate court went on to declare respondents' dismissal as illegal. Relying on a certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that petitioner was then still operational, the Court of Appeals further held that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC gravely abused their discretion in ordering the grant of separation pay instead of reinstatement. [18] Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision. On 8 October 2003, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying said motion for lack of merit. [19] In the instant petition, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it acted as a trier of facts and ordered the reinstatement of respondents and payment of backwages. [20] Petitioner insists that the appellate court erroneously substituted its decision with that of the Labor Arbiter, whose finding and conclusion are in accordance with judicial precedents. [21] Petitioner reiterates that extensive trial on the merits was held before the Labor Arbiter wherein the parties had been afforded the opportunity to present their respective witnesses and documentary evidence. Petitioner stresses that findings of the Labor Arbiter, therefore, were all based on facts and substantial evidence. [22] Respondents, for their part, argue that by virtue of the Court's pronouncement in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, [23] the Court of Appeals is clothed with plenary authority to reverse the factual findings of the NLRC or other quasi-judicial bodies particularly when the latter's judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts when it manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts, which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion, or when it erroneously misapplied a law as is obtaining in the case at bar. [24] A petition for certiorari is available when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As a general rule, factual issues are not proper subjects for certiorari which is limited to the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. [25] It does not include an inquiry into the correctness of the evaluation of evidence which was the basis of the labor agency in reaching its conclus