G.R. NO. 165594 - FRANCISCO SORIANO, JR., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INCORPORATED.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the instant complaint for lack of merit. [19] Petitioner, Benjamin, Gonzales, and Apostol appealed to the NLRC. On 20 August 2002, the NLRC promulgated its Decision dismissing the appeal and affirming in toto the decision of Labor Arbiter Lustria. It ruled that the findings, conclusions and legal bases of Labor Arbiter Lustria were supported by the evidence on record. In parting, it ruled: Needless to state, not having been illegally dismissed, as comprehensively discussed above, Complainants-Appellants are therefore not entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority right and privileges and to payment of full back wages. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision appealed from is sustained in toto . [20] Petitioner, Benjamin, Gonzales, and Apostol filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC Decision but the same was denied for lack of compelling reason in the Resolution dated 28 October 2002. Thereafter, the four dismissed employees assailed the NLRC Decision and Resolution, dated 20 August 2002 and 28 October 2002, respectively, via a Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals. On 29 April 2004, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition and found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in rendering its assailed Decision and Resolution. Pertinent portions of the said decision read: At any rate, grave abuse of discretion, the ground invoked to support the petition at bench, has been defined as "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, x x x where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. It is not in fact sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; (the) abuse must be grave. Noting that no such abuse of discretion as defined attended the assailed resolutions, We have no choice but to dismiss the petition. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. [21] Petitioner, Benjamin, Gonzales, and Apostol filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 4 October 2004. On 24 November 2004, petitioner, Benjamin, Gonzales, and Apostol filed before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, dated 29 April 2004 and 4 October 2004, respectively. In our Resolution dated 24 January 2005, we denied the Petition for failure of Benjamin, Gonzales, and Apostol to sign the attached verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, thus: In accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a