Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 600 views

    Lagamayo vs. Cullinan Group

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    Peter Lagamayo was a supervisor at Cullinan Group, Inc. (CGI) who was accused of violations under his supervision including gambling, drinking, and theft. He was found guilty and put on preventive suspension. He asked to resign to keep his record clean, which CGI allowed, but denied him separation pay due to his offenses. He filed a case claiming illegal dismissal and unpaid wages and separation pay. The labor arbitrator and NLRC dismissed his complaint but the NLRC said he was entitled to back wages. The Court of Appeals affirmed except it said he was constructively, not illegally, dismissed. This petition for review is proper because the factual findings of the lower tribunals conflict on whether he

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lagamayo vs. Cullinan Group

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    600 views1 page
    Peter Lagamayo was a supervisor at Cullinan Group, Inc. (CGI) who was accused of violations under his supervision including gambling, drinking, and theft. He was found guilty and put on preventive suspension. He asked to resign to keep his record clean, which CGI allowed, but denied him separation pay due to his offenses. He filed a case claiming illegal dismissal and unpaid wages and separation pay. The labor arbitrator and NLRC dismissed his complaint but the NLRC said he was entitled to back wages. The Court of Appeals affirmed except it said he was constructively, not illegally, dismissed. This petition for review is proper because the factual findings of the lower tribunals conflict on whether he

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Peter Lagamayo was a supervisor at Cullinan Group, Inc. (CGI) who was accused of violations under his supervision including gambling, drinking, and theft. He was found guilty and put on preventive suspension. He asked to resign to keep his record clean, which CGI allowed, but denied him separation pay due to his offenses. He filed a case claiming illegal dismissal and unpaid wages and separation pay. The labor arbitrator and NLRC dismissed his complaint but the NLRC said he was entitled to back wages. The Court of Appeals affirmed except it said he was constructively, not illegally, dismissed. This petition for review is proper because the factual findings of the lower tribunals conflict on whether he

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    600 views1 page

    Lagamayo vs. Cullinan Group

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    Peter Lagamayo was a supervisor at Cullinan Group, Inc. (CGI) who was accused of violations under his supervision including gambling, drinking, and theft. He was found guilty and put on preventive suspension. He asked to resign to keep his record clean, which CGI allowed, but denied him separation pay due to his offenses. He filed a case claiming illegal dismissal and unpaid wages and separation pay. The labor arbitrator and NLRC dismissed his complaint but the NLRC said he was entitled to back wages. The Court of Appeals affirmed except it said he was constructively, not illegally, dismissed. This petition for review is proper because the factual findings of the lower tribunals conflict on whether he

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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.

    You might also like