G.R. No. 190724 - DIAMOND TAXI AND/OR BRYAN ONG, VS. FELIPE LLAMAS, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the CA ordered the petitioners to pay Llamas separation pay, full backwages and other benefits due the latter from the time of the dismissal up to the finality of the decision. The CA awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement because of the resulting strained work relationship between Llamas and Bryan following the altercation between the former and the latters brother. The petitioners filed the present petition after the CA denied their motion for reconsideration [12] in the CAs November 27, 2009 resolution. [13] The Petition The petitioners argue that the CA erred when it encroached on the NLRCs exclusive jurisdiction to review the merits of the LAs decision. To the petitioners, the CA should have limited its action in determining whether grave abuse of discretion attended the NLRCs dismissal of Llamas appeal; finding that it did, the CA should have remanded the case to the NLRC for further proceedings. Moreover, the petitioners point out that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it rejected Llamas appeal. They argue that the NLRCs action conformed with its rules and with this Courts decisions that upheld the dismissal of an appeal for failure to file a certificate of non-forum shopping. Directly addressing the CAs findings on the dismissal issue, the petitioners argue that they did not constructively dismiss Llamas. They maintain that Llamas no longer reported for work because of the several liabilities he incurred that would certainly have, in any case, warranted his dismissal. The Case for the Respondent Llamas argues in his comment [14] that the CA correctly found that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it maintained its dismissal of his appeal despite his subsequent filing of the certificate of non-forum shopping. Quoting the CAs ruling, Llamas argues that the NLRC should have given due course to his appeal to avoid miscarriage of substantial justice. On the issue of dismissal, Llamas argues that the CA correctly reversed the LAs ruling that found him not dismissed, legally or illegally. Relying on the CAs ruling, Llamas points out that the petitioners bore the burden of proving the abandonment charge. In this case, the petitioners failed to discharge their burden; hence, his dismissal was illegal. The Courts Ruling We do not find the petition meritorious. Preliminary considerations: factual-issue-bar-rule In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari , we review the legal errors that the CA may have committed in the assailed decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error undertaken in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case made under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined the presence or the absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits of the case, was corre