G.R. No. 155306 - MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG STAYFAST PHILS., INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, STAYFAST PHILIPPINES, INC./ MARIA ALMEIDA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is AFFIRMED, and complainants appeal, DISMISSED, for lack of merit. [17] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied it in a Resolution dated April 10, 2000. [18] Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 59465, on the following grounds: (A) RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GROSS AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT UPHELD THE LABOR ARBITERS DECISION. (B) COMPLAINANTS/APPELLANTS WHOSE TERMINATION RESULTED FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE[,] UNION-BUSTING AND UNLAWFUL LOCKOUT OF HEREIN RESPONDENT ARE ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL BACKWAGES. (C) COMPLAINANTS, BY REASON OF THE ARBITRARY ACTION IN WANTON DISREGARD OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF HEREIN [COMPLAINANTS,] ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES. [19] In a Decision dated July 1, 2002, the Court of Appeals found that petitioner was seeking a review of the findings of fact and conclusion of the Labor Arbiter which was sustained by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals found no cogent reason to indulge petitioner. It applied the rule that findings of fact made by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC are considered by the appellate court as binding if supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals ruled that the NLRC Resolution dated January 31, 2000 was supported by justifiable reason and cannot be faulted with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner failed to establish that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, a petition for certiorari is not used to correct a lower tribunals appreciation of evidence and findings of fact. Thus, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 1, 2002 reads: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Petition, having no merit, in fact and in law, is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and ORDERED DISMISSED. Resultantly, the assailed Resolution[s] are AFFIRMED, with costs to Petitioner. [20] Hence, this petition for certiorari [21] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. According to petitioner, it interposes appeal on the judgment of the Honorable Justices of the Court of Appeals on the following grounds: (1) The Honorable Justices of the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they upheld the rulings of the NLRC and disregarded the constitutional protection of labor as well as Article 248 (e) and Article 263 of the Labor Code. (2) The Honorable Justices of the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they upheld the decision of the NLRC that the termination of complainants/appellants were valid and corollary thereto no reinstatement[,] backwages, damages and attorneys fees were awarded. [22] In discussing the above grounds, petitioner claims that the discriminatory acts of respondent company and its General Manager against petiti