G.R. No. 164635 - MAJURINE L. MAURICIO, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, LUIS B. PUYAT, BENJAMIN YAMBAO AND CLARENCE D. GUERRERO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision of Labor Arbiter Cadiente Santos is hereby REVERSED IN TOTO AND SET ASIDE. Judgment herein is rendered in favor of the complainant-appellant as follows: a) Reinstating the complainant-appellant to her former position with all entitlements and without loss of seniority rights. Should reinstatement be impossible, separation pay equivalent to one month's salary or one-half month salary for every year of service whichever is higher should be awarded in favor of complainant. b) Granting her backwages from December 15, 1999 to date of her actual reinstatement. c) P50,000.00 moral and exemplary damages; and d) Attorney's fees of 10% of the amount awarded. [10] On respondents' Motion for Reconsideration, [11] however, the NLRC, by Decision [12] of May 6, 2003, vacated its original Decision and reinstated in toto the September 12, 2000 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner thereupon challenged via Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) the NLRC Decision, raising five grounds, [13] albeit the primordial issue was, as pointed out by the CA, whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its original Decision. The CA, holding in the negative, held that in terminating petitioner's probationary employment due to her failure to submit a certificate of clearance from her previous employer, the bank was merely exercising its management prerogative. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA by Resolution [14] dated July 14, 2004, she comes before this Court via Petition for Review praying for the reinstatement of the NLRC September 24, 2001 original Decision, she submitting that the CA erred in upholding the NLRC in reconsidering its earlier findings that PETITIONER WAS NOT A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE. THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT LEGAL BASIS TO TERMINATE PETITIONER. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE GUILTY OF BAD FAITH IN TERMINATING PETITIONER. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PETITIONER. x x x [15] Petitioner contends that factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and should be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness or upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law or, as in the instant case, "when the findings of the reviewing administrative tribunal are themselves conflicting as in this case where the NLRC took a radical and highly questionable 180-degree turn by reversing itself on the basis of a motion for reconsideration whose issues and arguments had already been passed upon in the judgment reconsidered." [16] While the essence of a motion for reconsideration is a second review of the facts, petitioner continues, the second review by the NLRC was unwarranted considering that private respondents raised the very same arguments which it had already passed upon in its original September 24, 2001 Decision. Thus, concludes petitioner, there are no new and compelling reasons to justify the complete turn-around of the NLRC. This C