G.R. No. 208163 - ROQUE B. BENITEZ AND SANTA FE LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, VS. SANTA FE MOVING AND RELOCATION SERVICES/VEDIT KURANGIL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it affirmed LA Franco's ruling with modification by awarding Benitez nominal damages of P50,000.00 for the violation of his right to procedural due process. Benitez and the union moved for reconsideration, to no avail. The NLRC denied the motion, [20] prompting them to file a petition for certiorari [21] with the CA. The CA Decision In its decision [22] under review, the CA found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's affirmation of LA Franco's ruling that Benitez was validly dismissed. It stressed that "the findings of the NLRC which adopted those of the Labor Arbiter were in accord with the evidence on record." [23] It dismissed the petition and denied Benitez's subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition Benitez and the union now ask the Court to reverse his dismissal and order his reinstatement with full backwages, grant his money claims, award him moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, as well as litigation expenses. They submit in the main that the CA committed grave and palpable error in misappreciating the facts and applicable jurisprudence in this case, especially the Samson v. NLRC [24] ruling. They contend that contrary to the appellate court's opinion, Benitez was not liable for serious misconduct. They insist that Benitez did not malign Kurangil, during the Christmas Party and that if he indeed became unruly on that day, the company guards should have restrained him and made a report about it, but there was no such intervention from the guards. At any rate, they argue, Benitez should not have been dismissed for the serious misconduct he allegedly committed since it was not in connection with his work as moving and relocation operator. Moreover, for misconduct to be serious, it must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant as the Court declared in Samson which, they claim, has factual similarities with the present case. The Respondents' Case In their Comment (on the Petition), [25] the respondents pray that the petition be dismissed and the assailed CA rulings modified through a deletion of the award of nominal damages to Benitez and the reinstatement of LA Franco's September 14, 2011 decision. In the alternative, they ask that the nominal damages award be tempered. They argue that the petitioners have not made out a case showing that there are special and compelling reasons requiring the exercise by this Court of its discretionary power of judicial review. They submit that the petition virtually raises the same arguments that had already been duly resolved, based on evidence supporting Benitez's dismissal for cause. Thus, the petition should be rejected outright for it raises only questions of facts and not of law. The Court's Ruling The procedural question Are the questions raised by the petitioners factual in nature, or are they of law? The respondents contend that they are questions of fact and are therefore not allowed in a petition for review on certiorari