Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM. Civil Procedure Case Digest nd 2 Year - Wesleyan Law School
TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL V. APOSTOL AND OPULENCIA FACTS:
Respondent Apostol was hired as assistant manager by petitioner Triumph International (Phils.), Inc. (TIPI) in March 11, and was terminated by TIPI on !1 "anuary !###. !###. $n the the other other hand hand,, respo responde ndent nt $pule $pulenci ncia a was was hired hired as a wareh warehou ouse se helpe helperr by TIPI TIPI sometime in 1#, and was the company%s warehouse super&isor at the time o' the termination o' his employment on !1 "anuary !###. Apostol was the immediate superior o' $pulencia. $pulencia. $n 1 and 1 August August 1, TIPI conducted an in&entory cycle count o' its direct and retail sales in its Mu*o+ warehouse. The in&entory cycle count yielded discrepancies between its result and the stoc list balance balance -ugue -ugue (TIPI%s (TIPI%s Mareting Mareting -er&ices -er&ices Manager Manager)) sent a show/c show/cause ause letter letter ‖to Apostol, TIPI%s TIPI%s Assistant Assistant Manager/0arehouse Manager/0arehouse and istribution, istribution, re2uiring him to e3plain in writing the negati&e &ariance based on the in&entory cycle count. $n !1 "anuary !###, TIPI, through -ugue, ser&ed notices to Apostol and $pulencia, stating that their employment had been terminated 'or committing in'ractions o' the company%s rules and regulations. -peci'ically, Apostol was 'ound to ha&e committed $''ense 4o. 5 (6raud or will'ul breach by an employee o' the trust reposed in him by the 7ompany) and $''ense 4o. ! (8sing, uttering or saying pro'ane, indecent, abusi&e, derogatory and9or indecorous words or language against the employer or super&isor), while $pulencia was 'ound to ha&e committed $''ense 4o. 5 only. $n !: "anuary !###, Apostol Apostol and $pulencia 'iled with the ;abor Arbiter Arbiter a complaint complaint 'or illegal dismissal and non/payment o' salaries and other bene'its against TIPI. ;abor Arbiter rendered a ecision dismissing the 7omplaint 'or lac o' merit. $n appeal, the 4;R7 a''irmed the ecision o' the ;abor Arbiter. $n !# 6ebruary !##, the 7ourt o' Appeals rendered
(1) 0hether the issues raised by TIPI in this case entail an e&aluation o' the 'actual 'indings o' the 7ourt o' Appeals, which is proscribed in a petition 'or re&iew on certiorari where only 2uestions o' law may be raised. (!) 0hether the 7ourt o' Appeals e3ceeded its
Page 1 o' 3
Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM. Civil Procedure Case Digest nd 2 Year - Wesleyan Law School
RULING: (1) Respondents re'er to -ection 1, Rule o' the 1= Rules o' 7i&il Procedure which states> F l i ngo fpe t i t i o nwi t hSupr e meCo ur t . e r t i o r ar i “ Se c t i o n1 . i —Ap ar t yde s i r i ngt oa pp e a lb yc f r o m aj ud gme nto rfi na lo r d e ro rr e s o l ut i o no ft heCo ur to fAp pe a l s ,t heSa nd i g a nb a y an, t heRe g i o n alTr i a lCo u r to ro t he rc o u r t swhe n e v e ra ut ho r i z e db yl a w,ma yfil ewi t ht he Sup r e meCo u r tav e r i fie dp e t i t i o nf o rr e v i e wo nc e r t i o r ar i .Thepe t i t i o ns hal lr ai s eo nl y q ue s t i o nso fl a w whi c hmus tbedi s t i nc t l ys e tf o r t h. ”
Applying the abo&e rule, respondents maintain that the instant petition should be dismissed motu proprio by this 7ourt. As a general rule, petitions 'or re&iew under Rule o' the Rules o' 7i&il Procedure 'iled be'ore this 7ourt may only raise 2uestions o' law. ?owe&er, (1) when the fn!n"# $%e "%&'n!e! ent%e &n #*e+'$t&n, #'%-#e# &% +&ne+t'%e#/ (0) when the nfe%en+e -$!e # -$nfe#t -#t$en, $2#'%! &% -*&##2e/ (3) when the%e # "%$e $2'#e &f !#+%et&n/ (4) when the '!"-ent # 2$#e! &n -#$**%ehen#&n &f f$+t#/ (5) when the fn! n"# &f f$+t $%e +&nf+tn"/ (6) when n -$n" t# fn!n"# the C&'%t &f A**e$# went 2e&n! the ##'e# &f the +$#e, &% t# fn!n"# $%e +&nt%$% t& the $!-##&n# &f 2&th the $**e$nt $n! the $**eee/ (7) when the fn!n"# $%e +&nt%$% t& th$t &f the t%$ +&'%t/ (8) when the fn!n"# $%e +&n+'#&n# wth&'t +t$t&n &f #*e+f+ e!en+e &n wh+h the $%e 2$#e!/ (9) when the f$+t# #et f&%th n the *ett&n $# we $# n the *ett&ne%# -$n $n! %e* 2%ef# $%e n&t !#*'te! 2 the %e#*&n!ent/ (1;) when the fn!n"# &f f$+t $%e *%e-#e! &n the #'**&#e! $2#en+e &f e!en+e $n! +&nt%$!+te! 2 the e!en+e &n %e+&%!/ &% (11) when the C&'%t &f A**e$# -$nfe#t &e%&&e! +e%t$n %ee$nt f$+t# n&t !#*'te! 2 the *$%te#, wh+h, f *%&*e% +&n#!e%e!, w&'! '#tf $ !ffe%ent +&n+'#&n.
In this case, the 'actual 'indings o' the 7ourt o' Appeals are di''erent 'rom those o' the 4;R7 and the ;abor Arbiter. These con'licting 'indings led to the setting aside
Page 0 o' 3
Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM. Civil Procedure Case Digest nd 2 Year - Wesleyan Law School
by the 7ourt o' Appeals o' the decision o' the 4;R7 which a''irmed the ;abor Arbiter. In &iew thereo', we deem a re&iew o' the instant case proper. (0) The power o' the 7ourt o' Appeals to re&iew 4;R7 decisions via a Petition 'or Certiorari under Rule @ has been settled as early as our decision in St. Martin uneral !ome v. "L#C. In said case, we held that the proper &ehicle 'or such re&iew is a -pecial 7i&il Action 'or Certiorari under Rule @ o' the Rules o' 7ourt, and that the case should be 'iled in the 7ourt o' Appeals in strict obser&ance o' the doctrine o' the hierarchy o' courts. Moreo&er, it is already settled that under -ection o' $atas Pam%ansa $lg . 1!, as amended by Republic Act 4o. =#!, the 7ourt o' Appeals pursuant to the e3ercise o' its original B3 3 3 The 7ourt o' Appeals shall ha&e the power to try cases and conduct hearings, recei&e e&idence and per'orm any and all acts necessary to resol&e 'actual issues raised in cases 'alling within its original and appellate
?owe&er, e2ually settled is the rule that 'actual 'indings o' labor o''icials, who are deemed to ha&e ac2uired e3pertise in matters within their
Page 3 o' 3
