4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly it, and the claim for reimbursement of expenses for the return flight of respondents Bajaro, Sumigcay and Morilla was similarly disallowed, not having been raised as a cause of action in their complaint. Lastly, the NLRC absolved petitioner Lamson of any personal liability for dearth of evidence showing that she acted in bad faith, following the oft-repeated principle that corporate officers cannot be held jointly and severally liable for the obligations of a corporation arising from employment-related claims. Respondents sought reconsideration[13] of the NLRC’s Decision, which was subsequently denied in the Resolution[14] dated September 22, 2004. The Court of Appeals’ Ruling Aggrieved, respondents elevated the case via petition for certiorari before the CA which, in its assailed August 22, 2005 Decision,[15] nullified and set aside the previous issuances of the NLRC and reinstated in toto the July 12, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. The CA concurred with the findings of the Labor Arbiter that petitioners failed to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements to effect a valid retrenchment. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the Resolution[16] dated October 11, 2005. Issues Before The Court In this petition for review, petitioners impute reversible error on the part of the CA in nullifying the NLRC issuances and in reinstating in toto the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, as the latter failed to take into consideration the principles of private international law, which form part of the law of the land, as well as the labor standards laws of the Republic of China, in resolving the complaint filed before it. Petitioners also contend that the Labor Arbiter misconstrued and misapplied Section 10 of R.A. 8042. The Court’s Ruling The petition is bereft of merit. At the outset, the Court notes that petitioners are raising before the Court for the first time, the applicability of the principles of private international law and the labor standards laws of the Republic of China in the proper interpretation of respondents’ employment contracts. Records show that petitioners never advanced this issue at the first opportunity before the Labor Arbiter, and even in the subsequent proceedings before the NLRC and the CA. Instead, petitioners’ arguments consistently centered on the existence of a valid retrenchment and compliance with the requirements to legally effect the same. It bears stressing that issues not raised in the proceedings below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[17] Specifically, points of law, theories and arguments not raised before the appellate court will not be considered by the Court.[18] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55311 4/8