Case Summary (G.R. No. 153478)
Nature of the Petition
The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45, challenging the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated July 14, 2017, and December 21, 2017, which dismissed the petition for certiorari as moot and academic. The original complaint concerned their alleged illegal dismissal and related claims, previously decided by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Antecedent Facts
Fernando Bingbing and Gilbert VillaseAor were informed by clients that they were no longer employed by the petitioners, which led them to contact Rafaelito Lagat, who confirmed he sent out advisories regarding their employment status. The petitioners accused the respondents of misconduct, including financial discrepancies, which the respondents contested, asserting that the notice served as a termination of employment. Following failed settlement efforts at the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the respondents lodged complaints against their employers for illegal dismissal and related claims.
NLRC's Initial Decision
On March 27, 2015, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them illegally dismissed and ordering the petitioner corporation to pay a total of P493,276.64. The petitioners pursued an appeal with the NLRC, which dismissed it on September 30, 2015, affirming the Labor Arbiter's findings and modifying the monetary award—deleting the amount due to one of the respondents for procedural reasons.
Execution and Monetary Awards
Subsequently, after a failed motion for reconsideration by the petitioners, the Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution on August 8, 2016, for the payment of the judgment award. The petitioners contested additional monetary awards claimed in the writ, which were eventually collected through the garnishment of their bank deposits.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
On March 28, 2016, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. During this period, the mediation process was initiated, but respondents later claimed it became moot as the judgment had been satisfied. By July 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals noted the settlement and dismissed the petition for certiorari as withdrawn.
Legal Arguments Presented
Respondents argued that the petition for certiorari was moot because the case had been settled. Conversely, petitioners maintained that the payment made was strictly due to the writ issuance and should not affect the pending certiorari petition. They contended that the Court of Appeals erred in treating the petition as withdrawn due to their compliance with the Writ of Execution.
Court&#
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 153478)
Nature of the Petitions
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Resolutions dated July 14, 2017, and December 21, 2017, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144805.
- The CA dismissed the certiorari petition for being moot and academic, which previously assailed the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision in NLRC Case No. SRABV-10-00084-14.
Antecedent Facts
- Respondents Fernando A. Bingbing and Gilbert C. VillaseAor were employed as technical sales representatives by Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc., represented by petitioners Ronilo Dela Cruz and Rafaelito Lagat, Jr.
- Bingbing was hired in 2013 and VillaseAor as early as 2008, focusing on the sale and delivery of veterinary products and collection of payments.
- Around March 1, 2014, respondents were informed by clients that the company had released advisories stating they were no longer associated with Ro-Ann.
- Petitioner Lagat confirmed sending the advisories upon instruction from the company, leading respondents to claim express termination of their employment.
- Petitioners accused the respondents of unexplained withdrawals of items, failure to remit payments, and moonlighting, ultimately leading to respondents ceasing to report for work.
Legal Proceedings Initiated by Respondents
- Respondents filed grievances with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) but were unable to settle.
- On October 1, 2014, they filed complaints with the NLRC for illegal dismissal