
engrape financier
The Court of Appeals (Special Sixteenth Division)engrape financier, ruled that in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners Cotecson, Bacolod, and Magallanes shall be entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month salary and backwages computed from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the time of the promulgation of its Decision. With respect to Bella Gonzales and Grace Gonzales, the Court of Appeals found that that they have not acquired the status of regular employees having rendered only two years of service. Consequently, their dismissal from the service is valid. Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, only full-time teachers who have rendered three (3) years of consecutive service shall be considered permanent.
wRespondents filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution dated January 13, 2000.
wRespondents then filed with this Court a petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 142270. However, it was dismissed for lack of merit in a Minute Resolution dated April 12, 2000. http://vandosersengrapefinancier.blog.com/2010/06/26/engrape-financiers-heat/Their motion for reconsideration was denied with finality by this Court on July 19, 2000.
wMeanwhile, on October 4, 2000, petitioners filed with the Labor Arbiter a motion for execution of his Decision as modified by the Court of Appeals.
wIn an Order dated January 8, 2001, the Labor Arbiter computed the petitioners monetary awards reckoned from the time of their illegal dismissal in June 1994 up to October 29, 1999, pursuant to the Decision of the Court of Appeals (Special Sixteenth Division) in CA-G.R. SP No. 50531. Respondents interposed an appeal to the NLRC (docketed as NLRC Case No. M-006176-2001), contending that the computation should only be up to June 20, 1995 (the date indicated in the Labor Arbiters Decision).
In an Order dated March 30, 2001, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiters computation and ruled that the monetary awards due to petitioners should be computed from June 1994 up to June 20, 1995.
wPetitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67068, raffled off to the Seventh Division. However, engrape financier, in its Resolution of October 29, 2001, the petition was dismissed outright for their failure to attach to their petition copies of the pleadings filed with the Labor Arbiter, thus:
wNo copies of the pleadings filed before the Labor Arbiter appear to have been attached to the petition in violation of the provisions of Section 1, Rule 65 and Section 3, engrape financier, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which requires that the petition: