Case Digest (G.R. No. 164403)
Facts:
Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Pablo Nagrama, Jr., G.R. No. 164403, March 04, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, R.T., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Cosmos Bottling Corporation is a soft‑drink manufacturer; respondent Pablo Nagrama, Jr. was employed by Cosmos as a maintenance mechanic beginning June 24, 1993 and was elected chief shop steward of the local union on September 17, 1996. In late September 1999 respondent was redesignated as waste water treatment operator and was instructed to attend a training seminar conducted by Clean Flow Philippines, Inc. scheduled September 27–30, 1999.Respondent missed the first two days of the seminar and, by memorandum dated September 29, 1999, his supervisor notified him that charges of abandonment of duty and gross insubordination were being filed and required a written explanation. Respondent explained that he attended several administrative hearings in Santiago, Isabela as a union representative and that he had secured permission from plant managers to do so. A hearing was conducted; on October 29, 1999 respondent was dismissed.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice before the Labor Arbiter. On August 4, 1999 the Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint for lack of merit, concluding abandonment based largely on a letter by respondent the Arbiter deemed a judicial admission (citing Rule 129, Sec. 4, Rules of Court). The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in a Resolution dated June 29, 2001. Respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 71229). On April 6, 2004 the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the NLRC decision, ordering reinstatement (or separation pay and backwages if reinstatement was not feasible), attorney’s fees and costs.
Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to annul the CA decision, arguing (1) the CA gravely erred in disregarding evidence of abandonment and gross insubordination, (2) the CA violated the doctrine of conclusive finality, and...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the petition for review under Rule 45 raise only questions of fact (thus rendering it improper)?
- Did the Court of Appeals violate the doctrine of conclusive finality by reviewing and reversing the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in finding that respondent was not guilty of abandonment and gross insubordination (i....(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)