Case Digest (G.R. No. 140853)
Facts:
Ariel A. Tres Reyes v. Maxims Tea House and Jocelyn Poon, G.R. No. 140853, February 27, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ariel A. Tres Reyes (employee) was employed by respondent Maxims Tea House (employer) as a driver from October 1995; his duties included fetching employees after closing. In the early morning of September 27, 1997, while driving a Mitsubishi L300 to pick up employees, Tres Reyes’ van collided with a ten‑wheeler truck which, according to the police report, had lost its brakes, intruded into his lane and could not stop despite braking attempts; petitioner and passengers were injured.On October 15, 1997, Maxims required petitioner to submit a written explanation; finding it unsatisfactory, the company preventively suspended him for 30 days beginning October 20, 1997 and terminated his employment on November 19, 1997. Tres Reyes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal (NLRC NCR Case No. 00‑12‑08773‑97). The Labor Arbiter, deciding on July 20, 1998 based primarily on position papers, found petitioner grossly negligent and sustained the dismissal, awarding modest financial items only.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on October 8, 1998, which the NLRC treated as an appeal (NLRC CA No. 017339‑98). On March 11, 1999 the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding no negligence and ordering reinstatement with backwages or separation pay if reinstatement was infeasible. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration to the NLRC was denied on May 12, 1999.
Respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 54110), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in treating the motion as an appeal and in substituting its own factual findings for those of the Labor Arbiter. On November 22, 1999 the Court of Appeals sided with respondents, set aside the NLRC decision and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner then brought the present petition for review to the Supre...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration be treated as a valid appeal to the NLRC despite its form as a prohibited motion for reconsideration?
- Was petitioner’s dismissal for gross negligence valid under t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)