G.R. No. 152101 - EMCOR INCORPORATED, VS. MA. LOURDES D. SIENES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision is SET ASIDE, and a new one rendered declaring Lourdes' retrenchment as illegal and ordering EMCOR to reinstate Lourdes to her former position with payment of full backwages. [8] The CA found that the petition for certiorari was indeed filed out of time following SC Resolution dated July 21, 1998, which was applicable to respondent's case, as the petition was filed on March 29, 1999; that even applying SC A.M. No. 00-02-03 dated September 1, 2000, where a new period of 60 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration is provided for, the petition was still filed out of time; nonetheless, the CA gave due course to the petition based on the merit of the case, setting aside technical rules in the higher interest of justice. In reversing the NLRC, the CA found that petitioner failed to present the quantum of proof of its losses to justify respondent's retrenchment; that the best proof of the profit and loss performance of a company was not petitioner's Comparative Income Statement but the Income Statement for the year 1996 bearing the accountant's signature or showing that it was audited by an independent auditor; that since respondent was terminated on August 1, 1997 when fiscal year 1997 had not yet ended, petitioner should have come up with its books of accounts and profit and loss statement signed by its accountant; that petitioner's Comparative Income Statement which covered only the year 1996 and two quarters of 1997, was not sufficient to show serious business losses, as it failed to show the income or losses for the years immediately preceding 1996; that it hired new employees when it could have offered respondent any of the clerical positions for newly-hired employees. The CA also held that the required one-month notice prior to her termination was not complied with since she was no longer allowed to work on August 2, 1997 despite the fact that the notice to terminate her was made only on August 1, 1997; and that there were no fair and reasonable criteria observed in terminating her. The CA, however, found no evidence to substantiate respondent's claim for damages. Petitioner received a copy of the CA decision on June 8, 2001 and filed a motion for reconsideration on June 20, 2001. On January 14, 2002, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration, and petitioner received a copy of the resolution on January 24, 2002. Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari raising the following issues: PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF OR LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT GAVE DUE COURSE TO THE APPEAL DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS ADMITTEDLY FILED OUT OF TIME. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF OR LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FURTHER REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE CONSISTENT RULING OF BOTH THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. [9] Petitioner alleges that the CA er