imagination to see that by reason of petitioner Zuellig’s feigned closure of business operations, private respondent San Miguel incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests. Therefore, the award of attorney’s fees is in order. WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the resolutions dated April 4, 2001 and June 15, 2001 of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming the November 15, 1999 decision of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC NCR 050363994 (CA No. 02286100) are hereby AFFIRMED and the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DENIED and ordered DISMISSED . SO ORDERED . Hence, petitioner appeals. Issues Petitioner asserts that the CA erred in holding that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that 569 VOL. 701, JULY 22, 2013 569 Zuelling Freight and Cargo Systems vs. National Labor Relations Commission the closure of the business operation of Zeta had not been bona fide, thereby resulting in the illegal dismissal of San Miguel; and in holding that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in ordering it to pay San Miguel attorney’s fees. 11 In his comment, 12 San Miguel counters that the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC because the ample evidence on record showed that he had been illegally terminated; that such finding accorded with applicable laws and jurisprudence; and that he was entitled to back wages and attorney’s fees. In its reply, 13 petitioner reiterates that the cessation of Zeta’s business, which resulted in the severance of San Miguel from his employment, was valid; that the CA erred in upholding the NLRC’s finding that San Miguel had been
illegally terminated; that his acknowledgment of the validity of his separation from Zeta by signing a quitclaim and waiver estopped him from claiming that it had subsequently employed him; and that the award of attorney’s fees had no basis in fact and in law. Ruling The petition for review on certiorari is denied for its lack of merit. First of all , the outcome reached by the CA that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion was borne out by the records of the case. We cannot undo such finding without petitioner making a clear demonstration to the Court now that the CA gravely erred in passing upon the petition for certiorari of petitioner. _______________ 11 Id ., at p. 9. 12 Id ., at pp. 230234. 13 Id ., at pp. 539543. 570 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Zuelling Freight and Cargo Systems vs. National Labor Relations Commission Indeed, in a special civil action for certiorari brought against a court or quasijudicial body with jurisdiction over a case, petitioner carries the burden of proving that the court or quasijudicial body committed not a merely reversible error but a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 8 pages?
- Fall '16
- Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court