G.R. NO. 154376 - ROBERTO T. DOMONDON, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, VAN MELLE PHILS., INC. AND NIELS H.B. HAVE. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal dismissal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit, and the claim for damages and attorney's fees denied. The complainant has the option to reconvey to respondents the car sold to him and thus retain full credit of the P300,000.00 "soft landing" assistance, or retain ownership of the car by paying respondents the purchase price of P300,000.00 minus any amount due him corresponding to his accrued benefits that has been applied by respondents as partial payment for the car. The NLRC affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter [16] on January 26, 2001 and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on March 5, 2001. Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals on a special civil action for certiorari but failed for the third time. The appellate court dismissed the petition on February 28, 2002 and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on July 17, 2002; hence, this petition for review on certiorari . Petitioner raises as error the failure of the appellate court to apply the rule in termination of employment that the burden rests upon the employer to prove by substantial evidence that the employee was removed for lawful or authorized cause. He also questions the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter to resolve the issue of the transfer of car-ownership by private respondents. I. The first issue raises factual matters which may not be reviewed by the Court. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. Not being a trier of facts, the Court cannot re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of evidence presented to the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which formed the basis of the questioned decision and resolution. [17] Indeed, their findings when in absolute agreement are accorded not only respect but even finality as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. [18] In any event, we combed the records of the case at bar and found no compelling reason to disturb the uniform findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter. There was no arbitrary disregard or misapprehension of evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated. Petitioner's letter of resignation, his educational attainment, and the circumstances antecedent and contemporaneous to the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal are substantial proof of petitioner's voluntary resignation. Petitioner's letter of resignation was categorical that he was resigning "to embark on management consultancy in the field of strategic planning and import/export." [19] Petitioner was holding a managerial position at private respondent VMPI and he was previously Vice-President for strategic planning at LG Collins Electronics. Thus, "management consultancy in the field of strategic planning" was a logical reason for the resignation, which either petitioner or private respondents may provide. "Import/export," whether inclusive or exclusive of the