Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ô
c
×
× !
"#petitioners,
vs.
""!"###$"%&'(×#
# respondents
è #
@ ese cases of illegal dismissal were filed on December 11, 1981 by Ant ony Farnican,
Art ur Altatis and Ricardo Wangit in t e first case, No. 0044-81, and Jovencio Mina and
Peter Atuban in t e second case, No. 0045-81. @ ey ave been consolidated since t e
complainants ave t e same causes of action against t e same respondent, Itogon-
Suyoc Mines, Inc. @ e records do not s ow w at was t eir respective pay w en t e
complainants were all disc arged on December 3, 1981.
On November 20, 1981, between 11:00 p.m. and 11:45 p.m., erein complainants were
allegedly caug t in t e act of ig grading. According to t e respondent's version, five
mine patrols proceeded to 14 Vein, 23 Position, 1400 Level underground. On t eir way,
at about 11:00 p.m., t e patrols met t e respondent's mine engineer, leadman of t e
complainants, escorted by two security guards carrying two sacks of ig grade ore. Wit
eadlig ts off, t e patrols went down t e manway and w en t ey reac ed t e
appre ension site, t ey saw t e complainants breaking and pulverizing ig grade ores in
t e presence of t e posted security guard. @ ey observed t e ig graders in (a ) five (5)
minutes, and w en t e lookout miner noticed t eir presence and warned is companions:
"Adda tao!" in Ilocano, meaning "t e guards are ere!" ² t e mine patrols appre ended
t e complainants were a plastic containing t e ig grade ores, ammers and iron tubes
being used in breaking t e ores.
One of t e complainants allegedly bribed t e appre ending officers (a ) P(1,000.00 eac
to settle t e manner (a ), but t e guards refused t e offer. Prior to t e appre ension, t e
security guard (SG) on post, SG Freddie Bragado, allegedly warned t e complainants to
stop t eir illegal activity, but t e complainants t reatened im not to report t em
ot erwise somet ing would appen to im. Because of t e t reat, alt oug e was t en
armed wit a s otgun, SG Bragado, t e guard on post and star witness of t e
respondent, became afraid. SG Bragado just let t e complainants commit ig grading
until t e mine patrols arrived to appre end t e ig graders. Complainants were
investigated, placed preventive suspension on November 23, 1981 and subsequently
dismissed on December 3, 1981.
, pp. 15-17).
Respondent is finally ordered to present proof of compliance wit t is Order wit in ten
(10) days from receipt of t is decision (c
, p. 19).
Administrative Order No. 161 dated November 18, 1989 of t e Secretary of Labor and
Employment reorganized t e NLRC and specified t e place of assignment of t e newly
appointed commissioners. @ e new commissioners, Presiding Commissioner Lourdes
C. Javier and Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo w o were assigned to t e @ ird
Division, assumed t eir posts on November 20, 1989 w ile Commissioner Rogelio I.
Rayala assumed is office on November 15, 1989.
In t e motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent, t e @ ird Division, as
newly constituted, rendered its Decision dated November 29, 1990 setting aside t e
Resolution dated October 18, 1990 and declaring t e dismissal from employment of
complainants as valid.
Hence, t is petition.
Petitioners claim t at t eir motion for reconsideration s ould ave been resolved by t e
same members of t e @ ird Division w o rendered t e appealed decision.
We do not agree.
Under Article 213 of t e Labor Code of t e P ilippines, as amended by R.A. No. 6715,
". . . Of t e five (5) divisions [of t e NLRC], t e First and Second Divisions s all andle
cases coming from t e National Capital Region and t e @ ird, Fourt and Fift
Divisions, cases from ot er parts of Luzon, from t e Visayas and Mindanao,
respectively. @ e divisions of t e Commission s all ave exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over cases wit t eir respective territorial jurisdiction" (Emp asis supplied).
Section 2(b), Rule VII of t e New Rules of Procedure of NLRC, provides as follows:
??
a?
?
a ??
a? ? aa? ? ??
?
?c???
` ???a ?
? aa? ??
ca? ?
?
?
a?c ? ? ? ? ?!?!
?? "??a ?
?
aa? ? a#a?
ca? ? ?? "? ?? ?a ?
? aa?
?!?
ca?$ ?$ ?$??$ ?
?a? ??!?
a?c?
aa?a
%?
Since petitioners are from Baguio City, t e @ ird Division of NLRC correctly took
cognizance of t e appealed case. As may be gleaned from t e above-cited rules of
NLRC, Baguio City is included in t e Cordillera Administrative Region, w ic is
assigned to t e NLRC @ ird Division. Consequently, t e motion for reconsideration filed
by petitioners must also be resolved by said @ ird Division.
. . . In ordinary parlance judges are spoken of as t e courts and t e courts are referred to,
w en t e person speaking means t e judge simply. It is common for persons, lawyers,
and judges, as well as t e law, to use t ese terms interc angeably. But, notwit standing
t at fact, t ere is an important distinction between t em w ic s ould be kept in mind.
Courts may exist wit out a present judge. @ ere may be a judge wit out a court. @ e
judge may become disqualified, but suc fact does not destroy t e court. It simply means
t at t ere is no judge to act in t e court. @ e courts of t e P ilippine Islands were created
and t e judges were appointed t ereto later. In a few instances, t e judges were
appointed before t e courts were establis ed. A person may be appointed a judge and
be assigned to a particular district or court subsequently. So it appears t at t ere is an
important distinction between t e court, as an entity, and t e person w o occupies t e
position of judge (at pp. 346-347).
Going now to t e claim t at petitioners were illegally dismissed, we find and so old t at
substantial evidence exists to warrant t e finding t at petitioners were engaged in
ig grading.
SO ORDERED.
(
a
?&% ?a??
%?