IBM DAKSH BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.

(now known as Concentrix Daksh

Business Process Services Philippines Corporation), petitioner
vs
ROSALLIE S. RIBAS, respondent

By: Lemuel Angelo M. Eleccion

ISSUES:
(1) WON the termination of Rosallies’s Employment is Valid?
(2) On procedural matter: WON the CA’s 6th division erred in reversing and setting aside the NLRC
decision?
FACTS:
- Petitioner is an outsourcing company engaged in customer care services with foreign clientele. Rosallie
S. Ribas (respondent), on the other hand, was employed by the petitioner as a customer care specialist
on July 6, 2010.
- On March 8, 2011, respondent was issued a Show Cause Memo for her absences on March 1, 2, 5, and
6, 2011.
- On March 13, 2011, respondent submitted her written explanation.
- Respondent was then formally charged with violation of the company's code of conduct for being absent
for several days without leave or proper prior notice. A hearing therefor was conducted on March 16,
2011 and conclusion was made that her employment is hereby terminated effective April 8, 2011.
- Rosallie filed before the Labor Arbiter for Illegal Dismissal but the LA dismissed the same for lack of
merit.
- On appeal to the NLRC, reversed the Las decision ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed, ordering
the petitioner to reinstate her to her former position plus payment of backwages.
- On August 30, 2011, NLRC drafter a Resolution partially granting petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
ruling that respondent’s dismissal was justified but nevertheless ordered the same to reinstate
respondent and payment of backwages for reason of equity and compassion.
- Petition for Certiorari under rule 45 was filed before the CA by the respondent and the petitioner on a
different date involving the same facts, the same claims and interest, questioning the assailed resolution
of the NLRC.
- However, CA failed to consolidate the same.
- On January 20, 2015, CA’s 11th Division rendered a decision denying the petitioner’s petition and
affirming the NLRC’s resolution. (Here, the CA sustained the NLRC’s findings that there was a valid
dismissal but respondent should be reinstated to her former position plus backwages. Thus, becomes
final and executory, declaring the case CLOSED AND TERMINATED.
- On December 18, 2015, CA 6th Division rendered a decision granting the respondent’s petition and setting
aside the resolution on August 30, 2011 ruling that there was an illegal dismissal and be reinstated plus
payment of backwages.

RULING:
1. YES, the dismissal was valid. The Supreme Court uphold the ruling of the CA in the said decision
considering that the same is IMMUTABLE, UNALTERABLE binding between the parties, and
CONCLUSIVE in court. Although there was a Valid dismissal, the company is still ordered to reinstate
Rosallie to his former position and the payment of backwages.

2. YES, the CA’s 6th Division erred in reversing the and setting aside the NLRC decision as the same
attained finality and set aside it’s decision rendered. It cannot be denied that the CA's Decision became
final and executory even before the rendition of the herein assailed CA Decision. It is a hornbook
doctrine that once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable (DOCTRINE
OF FINALITY OF JUDGEMENT)