Finality of finding of facts
The CA is not given unbridled discretion to modify factual findings of the NLRC and LA, especially when such matters have not been assigned as errors nor raised in the pleadings.
Petitioner Agnes Coeli Bugaoisan filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and payment of salary for the unexpired portion of employment period, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against respondents OWI Group Manila, Inc. (OWI), Morris Corp. (Morris) and Marlene D. Alejandrino.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) found petitioner illegally dismissed and respondents were ordered to pay jointly and severally her salary for the remaining period of her two-year contract, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA decision.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision with modification, reducing the award for the unexpired portion of employment to only one year.
Did the CA err in reducing the award to only one year?
Ruling: Yes.
Without an iota of doubt, this is a question of fact that is outside the scope of a petition for review under Rule 65.
The CA is only tasked to determine whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of factual issues presented before it by any parties. The CA is not given unbridled discretion to modify factual findings of the NLRC and LA, especially when such matters have not been assigned as errors nor raised in the pleadings.
With regard to the issues brought to the Court in this present petition, it bears stressing that this Court’s review of a CA ruling is limited to ascertaining the correctness of the CA’s decision in finding the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion, and deciding any other jurisdictional error that attended the CA’s interpretation or application of the law.
Clearly, the appellate court found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the NLRC as enunciated in the dispositive portion of its assailed decision, viz.:
WHEREFORE, there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the NLRC, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit x x x.
There being no grave abuse of discretion, the CA erred when it ruled that petitioner’s employment contract with Morris was for only one year.
The Court is precluded from doing an independent review of this factual matter since it has already been decided by the labor tribunals, unless the CA, in the certiorari petition, ascertains that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. Absent such determination, factual findings of the NLRC are deemed conclusive and binding even on this Court.
In light of the foregoing, the Court considers the findings of fact of the LA, as affirmed by the NLRC, final and conclusive, in the absence of proof that the latter acted without, in excess of or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Agnes Coeli Bugaoisan vs. OWI Group Manila and Morris Corporation, G.R. No. 226208, February 7, 2018).