BERNADETH LONDONIO AND JOAN CORCORO VS.

BIO RESEARCH, INC AND WILSONY.ANG

G.R. No. 191459, January 17, 2011
PONENTE: J. Carpio-Morales

FACTS:

Londonio and Socorro were hired by Bio Research as

graphic/visual artist. Their services were terminated due to alleged
redundancy and to prevent losses. They filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and claimed that the company was tainted with malice
and bad faith as the retrenchment was a retaliatory in nature
following the filing of Londonio of a sexual harassment case
against the manager of the company. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
complainants and ordered their reinstatement with full backwages
which was later on upheld by NLRC. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of NLRC but deleted the award of moral damages and
absolved Wilson Ang, CEO of Bioresearch from any liability.
Complainants questioned the decision of the Court of Appeals by
filing a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion

amounting to lack of jurisdiction in modifying the decision of the
NLRC?

LAW:

Citing the case of Wyeth-Suico Laboratories, Inc. vs. NLRC

(on finality of findings of fact of labor tribunals), GR No. 100658,
March 2, 1993, 219 SCRA 356

RULING:

 No, the Court of appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion
in deciding the case. Absent any showing that the appellate court
ignored, misconstrued and misapplied the facts and circumstances
of substance, its affirmance of the NLRC decision holding that
complainants were illegally dismissed stands. The Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC being the most equipped and having acquired
expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, their
findings of fact are accorded not only respect but even finality if
they are supported by substantial evidence.
OPINION:

I concur with the ruling of the Supreme Court that the Court
of Appeals correctly decided the case and that the findings of fact
of Labor Arbiter and NLRC when supported with substantial
evidence are valid, binding and accorded with great respect
because if their findings, if done with regularity in the performance
of their duties, will not be upheld by courts the purpose for their
creation and the delegation of quasi-judicial functions to them will
be held nugatory