EMOGENE V. DUMANTAY AND MARY V. DUMANTAY, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION), LABOR ARBITER FATIMA JAMBARO-FRANCO AND RUFINO P. ANTONIO, RESPO…
SADANG, J.:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision, dated June 29, 2012, of the National Labor Relations Commission (Fifth Division), in NLRC LAC No. 03-001002-12 (NLRC NCR Case No. 03-04776-11), affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, and its October 24, 2012 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that only petitioner Emogene V. Dumantay shall be liable to pay the monetary benefits awarded in the Decision of the Labor Arbiter in favor of private respondent Rufino P. Antonio.
SO ORDERED.
Private respondent Rufino P. Antonio filed an Opposition/Comment to Petitioner’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration (Re 31 July 2014)[3] on October 7, 2014.
After a thorough scrutiny of the arguments interposed by petitioner, we find and so hold, that there exists no cogent reason for us to modify, much less reverse and deviate from the findings and conclusions reached in our decision.
WHEREFORE, the Partial Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Librea-Leagogo, (Chairperson), and Diamante, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 254-265.
[2] Id., pp. 239-247.
[3] Id., pp. 270-271.