G.R. No. 73647 ; April 8, 1991
JOSE G. BUSMENTE JR., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and APOLONIO CENTRON, doing business under the name and style, CENTRONET ENTERPRISES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose G. Busmente Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against his employer, Apolonio Centron. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint without prejudice for Busmente’s failure to file his position paper and appear at a hearing. Upon Busmente’s motion for reconsideration, the Arbiter required the submission of position papers. In his decision, the Arbiter dismissed Busmente’s complaint on the merits. The Arbiter found that Centron had substantiated full payment of legal wages through payrolls signed by Busmente and, crucially, that Busmente had abandoned his work. This finding of abandonment was based on evidence from a separate case (NLRC-NCR-7-2510-84) filed by Centron against Busmente for damages due to abandonment. In that related case, the Arbiter found that Busmente had absented himself without permission, refused to receive and explain a written directive from Centron, and was instead driving for his brother’s competing business. The NLRC affirmed both decisions. Busmente then filed this certiorari petition, challenging the factual finding of abandonment.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review and overturn the factual finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Busmente abandoned his employment.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot review the factual findings in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65. The sole function of the Court in such a proceeding is to determine whether the respondent tribunal, the NLRC, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC clearly had jurisdiction over the case. The parties were afforded due process, with both sides presenting evidence and arguments which were duly considered. The conclusions reached—that Busmente abandoned his work and was paid his lawful wages—were based on the evidence on record, including payrolls and findings from the related case. While these conclusions may be debatable or even possibly erroneous, they cannot be characterized as having been made with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The findings here were not outrageously wrong but were substantially supported by evidence. Therefore, the Court upheld the NLRC’s decision.