l\.

epubHc of tbe ~biHppine~

$ttpreme Qtourt
.:fflanila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated September 21, 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 259809 (Elmedio Velasco Castro, Jr. v. Ace Promotion

and Marketing Corporation and Ramil Raymund Rances). - This Petition
for Review on Certiorari 1 (petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assails the Decision2 dated 19 February 2021 and the Resolution3 dated 11
March 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 164393. The
CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) when it rendered its Decision4 dated 28 June
2019 in NLRC LAC No. 11-004141-18 which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's
(LA) Decision 5 dated 04 September 2018, dismissing petitioner Elmedio
Velasco Castro, Jr. 's (Castro) Complaint6 for constructive illegal dismissal,
non-payment of 13 th month pay and service incentive leave (SIL), and illegal
suspension, with prayer for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's
fees.

The petition is unmeritorious.

The issues raised by Castro are factual in nature as they require the
Court to re-evaluate the evidence on record. 7 It is settled that in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of
law may be put in issue and questions of facts will not be entertained.8 After
all, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies,

1
Rollo, pp. 12-37.
2 Id. at 39-47. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate
Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale.
3 Id. at 4 9-50. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate
Justices Maria Filomena D. Singh (now a Member of this Court) and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale.
4 Id. at 77-90. Penned by Commissioner Mary Ann Plata-Daytia and concurred in by Commissioners
Grace M. Venus and Leonard Vinz 0. Ignacio.
5 Id. at 217-224. Penned by Labor Arbiter Gaudencio P. Demaisip, Jr.
6
Id. at 239-244.
7 See Philman Marine Agency, Inc. v. Cabanban, 715 Phil. 454, 471 (2013).
8 Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Banas, 711 Phil. 576, 584 (201 3).

- over - three (3) pages ...

100
Resolution 2 GR. No. 259809
September 21, 2022

which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to

specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when
affirmed by the CA.9

While there are exceptions to the rule that only questions of law are
allowed in a Rule 45 petition, 10 none appears to be present in this case. The
arguments raised by Castro were already passed upon in the uniform rulings
of the labor tribunals and the CA.

The CA did not err in affirming the NLRC's acceptance of the

documents presented by respondents Ace Promotion and Marketing
Corporation and Ramil Raymund Rances evidencing payment of Castro's
13 th month pay and SIL. Rule VII, Section 10 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure, as amended, provides that the NLRC is not bound by the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law. Thus:

SECTION 10. TECHNICAL RULES NOT BINDING. - The rules of

procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be
controlling and the Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

In any proceeding before the Commission, the parties may be

represented by legal counsel but it shall be the duty of the [Chairperson],
any Presiding Commissioner or Commissioner to exercise complete control
of the proceedings at all stages.

To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, 11 however, legal interest at

the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the total
monetary award of the LA, if still unpaid, reckoned from the finality of this
Resolution until full payment.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated

19 February 2021 and Resolution dated 11 March 2022 of the Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 164393 are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that the total monetary award of the Labor Arbiter, if
still unpaid, shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

9 Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission, 679 Phil. 394, 414 (2012).
10 Saliva v. Tanggol, G.R. No. 223429, 29 January 2020. The Court enumerated the following exceptions:
(a) [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of facts
are conflicting; (f) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case,
or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) when the
findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (j) when the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (k)
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
11 Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).

- over -
100
Resolution
SO ORDERED." Gesmundo, C.J., on official business.
by:
PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Special and Appealed Cases Service
Counsel for Petitioner
5/F, DOJ Agencies Building
NIA Road cor. East Avenue, Diliman
110 I Quezon City
UR
3 G.R. No. 259809
September 21, 2022
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA . A
Division C erk of Cou~io\\µ
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
100
OCT 1 1 2D2?
Court of Appeals (x)
Manila
(CA-G.R. SP No. 164393)
MOGRINO RIVERA & CRUZ
Counsel for Respondents
Unit 70 I , 7 th Floor, Tycoon Corporate Center
Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
Ben-Lor Building, 1184 Quezon Avenue
Brgy. Paligsahan, 1103 Quezon City
(NLRC LAC No. I 1-004 141-18)
(NLRC NCR Case No. 03-04240-18)
Public Information Office (x)
Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)
Philippine Judicial Academy (x)
Supreme Court
Judgment Division (x)
Supreme Court