G.R. No. 202645 - FORTUNATO R. BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A. MELENDRES, VS. EPE TRANSPORT, INC.* AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ.

Ruling

Accordingly, it directed respondents to present evidence of the average amount of petitioners' daily or monthly wages, after deducting the boundary rates, for the computation of backwages, and further awarded the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement which it found to be no longer feasible. However, petitioners' claims for damages were denied for lack of factual basis. [27] In so ruling, the NLRC rejected respondents' defense that petitioners went on AWOL or had abandoned their work, holding that no evidence was presented to show that the latter were directed to report back for work. [28] It added that the intent to abandon work was negated by the filing of petitioners' previous complaints [29] to correct what they perceived were errors in the administration of the CBA, rationalizing that an employee who takes steps to protest his lay off cannot be said to have abandoned his work. [30] It further ruled that the unfair labor practice issue should not have been resolved by the LA since the issue was deemed impliedly removed by the dismissal of the complaint in the unfair labor practice case, and that a reading of the petitioners' position paper [31] in the instant suit showed that it delved only on the issue of illegal dismissal. [32] Respondents' motion for reconsideration [33] was denied in a Resolution [34] dated June 21, 2010; thus, they elevated the matter to the CA on certiorari . [35] The CA Ruling In a Decision [36] dated March 30, 2012, the CA set aside the NLRC's March 9, 2010 Decision and reinstated the LA's March 20, 2009 Decision. The CA concurred with the LA that petitioners' complaint in the illegal dismissal case failed to sufficiently establish the fact of their dismissal. [37] It observed that petitioners failed to name the person/s who prevented them from reporting for work or from using their taxi units. Also, the statement that "they were free to go if they did not want to follow company policy" neither automatically amount to dismissal; nor can it be interpreted as a termination of their employment. [38] Hence, since their absence from work was not authorized, the CA concluded that it was petitioners who had unilaterally decided to cut their ties with respondents. Moreover, it pointed out that petitioners' agreement to seek redress before the company's grievance committee is inconsistent with their claim for illegal dismissal. [39] Dissatisfied, petitioners' moved for reconsideration [40] which was, however, denied in a Resolution [41] dated July 11, 2012; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding petitioners to have been illegally dismissed. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. Preliminarily, it should be pointed out that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [42] The Court is not a