G.R. No. 178520 - AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL, AMABLE C. AGUILUZ AND ANTHONY JESUS R. VINCE CRUZ, VS. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. [19] Respondent appealed the afore-quoted Decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. His appeal was docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 024664-2000. On 8 December 2000, the NLRC issued a Resolution [20] dismissing respondent's appeal as it found no cogent reason to modify and reverse the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution [21] dated 23 July 2001. Refusing to give up, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals, a Petition for Certiorari , under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67047. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dated 22 December 2006, finding that respondent was illegally dismissed. According to the appellate court, it cannot consider respondent's transgression as serious misconduct when his actuation was not willful and deliberate, there appearing to be no intention on his part to cause damage. And although the Court of Appeals adjudged that respondent was guilty of negligence, it was not gross or habitual as would warrant the dismissal of respondent. The dispositive portion of the 22 December 2006 Decision of the appellate court thus reads -- WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision of Labor Arbiter Nieves De Castro and the Resolutions of the National Labor Relation Commission dated December 8, 2000 and July 23, 2001 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby entered: Herein [herein petitioner AMACCI] is hereby ordered to pay [herein respondent] separation pay equivalent to one month for every year of service to be reckoned from the end of his thirty-day suspension up to the finality of this decision, in addition to his full back wages allowances and other benefits. No costs. [22] Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated 4 June 2007. Petitioners are now before this Court raising the following issues STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DEPARTING FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN MAKING ITS OWN FINDINGS OF FACTS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION ADMITTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO ADMIT AS SUBSTANTIAL THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR NOT HAVING BEEN MADE UNDER OATH. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THE DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL AND IN STATING THAT THE GROUND UPON WHICH RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SERIOUS MISCONDUCT. [23] The Petition is not meritorious. At the outset, the Court must address petitioners' argument that the Court of Appeals went beyond its jurisdiction when it re-evaluated the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC. [24] The general rule, no doubt, is that findings of fact