G.R. No. 174115 - PUNONGBAYAN AND ARAULLO (P&A), BENJAMIN R. PUNONGBAYAN., JOSE G. ARAULLO, GREGORIO S. NAVARRO, ALFREDO V. DAMIAN AND JESSIE C. CARPIO, VS. ROBERTO PONCE LEPON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition filed in this case and SETTING ASIDE the [D]ecision and [R]esolution promulgated by the public respondent NLRC, Fourth Division in Cebu City in NLRC Case No. V-000090-2004 dated March 31, 2005 and July 5, 2005, respectively. Private respondents are hereby DIRECTED to pay jointly and severally the petitioner his full backwages from June 16, 2002 up to the finality of this judgment, separation pay in the sum of P1,142,400.00 for his 14 years of service with P&A computed at one month salary for every year of service, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the petitioner's separation pay and backwages. [25] P&A filed a motion for reconsideration [26] which was denied. [27] Thus, this petition. The Petition P&A maintained that the Court of Appeals committed grave error in rendering the Decision on four grounds. First, the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed the factual findings of both the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter. It erred when it re-evaluated the evidentiary weight accorded to the affidavits of petitioners' witnesses though supported by substantial evidence on record. [28] Second, the Court of Appeals erroneously ruled that the affidavits of the co-employees of respondent are not sufficient basis for petitioners' loss of trust and confidence in him. There was no allegation, much less proof, that respondent's colleagues and subordinates were motivated by any ill motive in giving false statements against him. There was also no showing that the witnesses were forced, intimidated, or coerced into executing their affidavits. [29] Third, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the absence of an administrative investigation constitutes a violation of respondent's right to due process. [30] Fourth, the Court of Appeals erred in holding the partners jointly and severally liable to pay the judgment award despite the absence of any showing that they acted in bad faith in terminating respondent's employment. [31] Issues Based on petitioners' allegations of errors, the issues for resolution before this Court are: Whether the factual findings of both the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter were supported by substantial evidence; Whether respondent was deprived of his right to due process; and Whether the petitioners are jointly and severally liable with P&A to pay the judgment award. Court's Ruling The parameters of a Rule 45 appeal from the Court of Appeal's Rule 65 decision on a labor case, are as follows: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision fro