8/6/2019 Labor Case 1-2

1/7

8/6/2019 Labor Case 1-2

2/7

2: Labor Case 1.2 BulSU Law 2BManahan, Jierah R.

The petitioners themselves admitted that Costales and Almoite were initially planned tobe a part of the compromise agreement, but their employment has been regularized as earlyas January 11, 2006; hence, the company did not pursue their inclusion in the compromiseagreement.

[12]

The CA faulted the NLRC for failing to appreciate the evidence regarding the

respondents prior employment with Atlanta. The NLRC recognized the prior employment ofCostales and Almoite on Atlantas monthly report for December 2003 for the CPSDepartment/Section dated January 6, 2004.

[13]This record shows that Costales and Almoite were

assigned to the companys first shift from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The NLRC ignored Sebolino andSaguns prior employment under the companys Production and Work Schedule for March 7 to 12,2005 dated March 3, 2004,

[14]as they had been Atlantas employees as early as March 3, 2004,

with Sebolino scheduled to work on March 7-12, 2005 at 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., while Sagun wasscheduled to work for the same period but from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The CA notedthat Atlanta failed to challenge the authenticity of the two documents before it and the laborauthorities.

Atlanta and Chan moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in a

resolution rendered on March 25, 2009.[15]Hence, the present petition.

8/6/2019 Labor Case 1-2

3/7

8/6/2019 Labor Case 1-2

4/7

8/6/2019 Labor Case 1-2

5/7

8/6/2019 Labor Case 1-2

6/7

6: Labor Case 1.2 BulSU Law 2BManahan, Jierah R.

Hence, this petition filed by petitioner, raising the sole issue of:

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THERESPONDENTS PETITION FOR REVIEW REVERSING THE DECISIONAND ORDER [OF THE] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.

[13]

The petition is without merit.

8/6/2019 Labor Case 1-2

7/7