Case Digest (G.R. No. 146397)
Facts:
Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, Sergio G. Rey, Sixto Batino, Rizalino T. Tamondong, Roberto Santos, Herminio G. Dela Rosa, Emilio B. Magleo, Johnny G. Bacani, Zaldy G. Guzman, Jonathan Y. Relevo and Ireneo Solis, G.R. No. 146397, July 01, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Cosmos Bottling Corporation conducted an internal investigation in December 1992–January 1993, through its personnel manager and comptroller, into alleged tampering, falsification and alteration of Load Tally Statement Sheets (LTSS) that purportedly deprived the company of P130,000. Ten employees (seven salesmen and three checkers), the private respondents here, denied involvement and pointed to security guards as the culprits. Relying largely on the statement of one Saturnino Montecalvo, petitioner terminated the ten employees for “fraudulent conspiracy” and dishonesty.
The terminated employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages, damages and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter (NLRC NCR Case No. 02‑00968‑93). On December 27, 1996 the Labor Arbiter found the dismissals illegal and ordered separation pay and backwages in specified amounts (total award later recomputed to P1,512,317.75). The NLRC, on appeal, modified the Arbiter only insofar as it recomputed respondent Zaldy G. Guzman’s separation pay (finding 13 years of service) but otherwise affirmed the Arbiter’s factual findings and conclusions that petitioner failed to establish individual culpability; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied on May 17, 1999.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on July 5, 1999, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. In a Decision dated August 4, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, holding that petitioner failed to prove respondents’ individual culpability and reiterating that factual findings of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, when supported by substantial evidence and in agreement, are accorded finality; petitioner’s motion for reconsiderati...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the petition presents a question of law cognizable under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the Court of Appeals and the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Labor Arbiter’s finding that petitioner failed to prove respondents’ guilt and that the d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)