G.R. No. 227718.

November 11, 2021

PETER ANGELO N. LAGAMAYO, PETITIONER, VS. CULLINAN GROUP, INC., AND
RAFAEL M. FLORENCIO, RESPONDENTS.
LOPEZ, J., J.
PROBLEM:
Lagamayo is a supervisor emplyed at CGI, a company engaged in the production of
jewelry. In 2011, CGI asked Lagamayo to explain himself as there had been several
violations reports under his supervision (gambling, alcoholic drinking, theft). Later, he
was found guilty of company charges and was put under preventive suspension. He
implored that he be allowed to resign to keep his record clean, and CGI agreed but
declined to give him separation pay because the offenses against him were proven.
He filed a case for illegal dismissal, payment of backwages and separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement as more than 30 days had lapsed from his suspension, yet he was not
reinstated. The LA dismissed his complaint. The NLRC affirmed the same but said he is
entitled to backwages. The CA affirmed the same but said he is not illegally dismissed,
but constructively dismissed. Whether the petition for review under Rule 45 is proper.
ANSWER:
Yes. The petitioner for review is proper.
Questions of fact are generally beyond the ambit of a petition for review under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court as it is limited to reviewing purely questions of law. The rule,
however, admits of exceptions such as when the factual findings of the reviewing
tribunals are conflicting.
It bears stressing that the NLRC and the LA dismissed petitioner's Complaint for Illegal
Dismissal which meant that both labor tribunals found that petitioner was not illegally
terminated. Meanwhile, the CA ruled that petitioner was constructively dismissed.
Considering that the conclusions of the LA, as affirmed by the NLRC, conflict with those
of the CA, the present case falls under the exception and the Court is thus constrained
to re-examine whether petitioner was indeed terminated.