G.R. NO. 150171 - ACEBEDO OPTICAL AND MIGUEL ACEBEDO III, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND MELENCIA ASEGURADO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the dispositve of the decision states, to wit: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of complainant unlawful and unjustified and ordering the respondents jointly and severally to reinstate said complainant to her former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights with full backwages which as of the date of this Decision has ballooned to the amount of P79,716.00 plus other benefits such as 13 th month pay in the amount of P6,643.00 and service incentive leave pay in the amount of P2,628.00. Respondents are also ordered to pay complainant's counsel ten (10%) percent of the total award recovered as attorney's fees pursuant to law. [15] On appeal, in a Resolution dated 17 November 1999, public respondent NLRC rendered a decision dismissing petitioners' appeal for allegedly being filed out of time ' long after the assailed decision of the Labor Arbiter had supposedly become final and executory. Accordingly, the assailed decision was affirmed in toto. The decretal portion of the Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed decision dated May 22, 1998 is hereby AFFIRMED. [16] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration [17] which public respondent NLRC denied in its Resolution dated 17 April 2000. Undaunted, herein petitioners went to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the National Labor Relations Commission for ordering the payment of backwages, damages and attorney's fees to an employee who had been dismissed for just cause. On 16 May 2001, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision dismissing the petition, the dispositive of which states that: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DENIED due course and is hereby DISMISSED. [18] In essence, the Court of Appeals held that herein petitioners failed to marshal the obligatory quantum of evidence needed to substantiate a finding of legitimacy or validity in the termination of employment of private respondent, the reason for which was supposedly her repeated defiance of company policy. According to the appellate court, petitioners' failure to adduce in evidence a copy of the contravened company policy was fatal to their cause. Absent proof of evidence of such document embodying the flouted rule, the appellate court, along with the labor arbiter and the NLRC, was unable to make a categorical finding on the issue of whether or not the private respondent's accumulated absences and/or tardiness were, indeed, in violation of petitioner company's rules and regulations. Further, as to the allegation of chronic absenteeism and/or tardiness for the period of 1991 to 1995, the appellate court likewise held that the non-presentation of the Daily Time Records (DTRs) for said period was a grave error. It held that the numerous memoranda issued to private respondent were mere self