Soriano vs. Atienza

G.R. No. 68619. March 16, 1989.

Main Topic – Rule 65.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and moral damages against Shellwood Industries (SHELWOOD). It appears that SHELLWOOD entered into a compromise agreement with the petitioners and agreed to give financial assistance amounting to P20,000.00 in lieu of union’s withdrawal of a case. SHELWOOD instead of paying the petitioners, terminated their service. The labor arbiter ordered the company to reinstate the petitioners and extend financial assistance equivalent to six (6) months of their respective salaries. On appeal to the NLRC, affirmed the judgment but deleted the award of financial assistance. The deletion is based on the ground that the company did not act in bad faith in terminating the petitioners since it merely complied with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union pursuant to the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement

ISSUE

Whether or not NLRC acted in grave abuse of discretion in deleting the award of financial assistance.

RULING

No. The labor officials’ findings on this factual matter are conclusive upon the Court under the well-settled doctrine that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality if supported by substantial evidence. The finding of good faith on the part of the company, the Court holds that there is no factual or legal basis for an order against the company to grant either back wages or financial assistance in the form of separation pay to petitioners. 
NLRC’s decision can hardly be considered tainted by the arbitrariness or unfairness that is the essence of grave abuse of discretion. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents in deleting the award of financial assistance, the petition must perforce fail.

DOCTRINE

Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality if supported by substantial evidence.

Disclaimer: This is my personal case digest. Use it at own risk. I do hope it helps!

If you want to view all of my case digests, you can find it here.