respectively, for they are contrary to law and existing jurisprudence. Hence,
petitioners presented before this Court the following issues:
I Whether or not the warning notices given to respondents substantially
[complied] with the requirements of the Labor Code in effecting a valid
dismissal.
II Whether or not the Court of Appeals may reinstate a Decision of the
Labor Arbiter, which the latter himself reversed and considered flawed.[18]
In the Memorandum[19] filed by petitioners, they maintain that there was just
and valid cause for the dismissal of the respondents. Thus, petitioners posit that
the only issue relevant to the dismissal of the respondents in this Petition is the
question on compliance with the two- notice requirement mandated by the Labor
Code, as amended.[20]
The petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in not
considering the warning notices issued to respondents as substantial compliance
with the requirements laid down in the Labor Code, as amended, in effecting a
valid dismissal. According to petitioners, such notices were issued days before
respondents were signed-off on 29 July 1998, so that ample opportunity was given
to the respondents to defend themselves and refute the accusations against
them. Thus, petitioners stand firm on their position that the dismissal of the
respondents was with cause and there was compliance with the requirement of due
process in effecting a valid dismissal.
Petitioners further claim that it was reversible error on the part of the Court
of Appeals to reinstate a Decision of the Labor Arbiter, which the latter himself
reversed and considered flawed for his failure to consider other pieces of evidence
which were presented by both parties.
In contrast, the respondents raise before this Court the following issues:
I.
Whether or not Rule 45 is proper in the instant case.
II. Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals is erroneous.