G.R. No. 240084 - RUBEN O. OLIVEROS AND HOMER HENRY S. SANCHEZ, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST LAGUNA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (FLECO), RAMIL F. DE JESUS, ARIES M. LLANES, GABRIEL C. ADEFUIN, RICHARD B. MONDEZ AND HERMINIA A. DANDO.

Ruling

Accordingly, the LA ordered their reinstatement and payment of full backwages, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000;00, and attorney's fees at the rate of 10% of the total award. [18] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) On appeal, the NLRC reversed [19] the LA Decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC ruled that FLECO did not violate petitioners' right to due process emphasizing that a notice of their infraction and an opportunity to be heard were given them. It also ratiocinated that FLECO was justified in terminating petitioners considering that they violated its rule against conflict of interest. It added that there was an obvious link between petitioners and Sergio Paulo as petitioners admitted ownership of the vehicles used by Sergio Paulo in its private contracts. The vehicles were included as assets of Sergio Paulo and cited as tools and equipment under its company profile. It also stressed on the standing of petitioners in Sergio Paulo noting that the latter's company profile indicated Sanchez as planning supervisor, while Oliveros as project supervisor; and its organizational chart placed them as second and third, respectively, to its President. Thereafter, the NLRC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration prompting them to file a Petition [20] for Certiorari under the Rules of Court with the CA. Meanwhile, in its Resolution [21] dated September 22, 2016, the CA required petitioners to submit material portions of the record pursuant to Section 3, Rule 46, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within five days from notice, among other matters. However, instead of submitting a compliance, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Urgent Motion for Extension [22] requesting for an extension of 30 days within which to comply with the CA Resolution of September 22, 2016. On February 8, 2017, the CA issued another Resolution [23] noting petitioners' manifestation and motion and directed their counsel to show cause why no disciplinary action be imposed against him for failure to comply with the Resolution dated September 22, 2016 despite the motion for extension he submitted for petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners submitted their "Compliance with Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Annexes." [24] Petitioners filed therewith Annexes "G" to "J" [25] of its Petition for Certiorari as well as additional annexes (Annex "K" - MN Electro Certification and Annex "L" - Excerpt from FLECO security logbook). [26] Ruling of the CA On October 27, 2017, the CA dismissed tine petition for certiorari . The CA ruled that despite their motion for extension and their eventual "Compliance with Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Annexes, petitioners still failed to submit material portions of the record including (1) die Organizational Chart of Sergio Paulo; (2) its list of accomplishments (Company Profile); and (3) the Statement of Account and Material Costin