6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On June 2, 2010, the NLRC denied the Motion for Reconsideration of its Resolution dated March 29, 2010. Undeterred, GPGS filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in ruling that Dagasdas was illegally dismissed. Ruling of the Court of Appeals On September 26, 2012, the CA set aside the NLRC Resolutions and reinstated the LA Decision dismissing the case for lack of merit. The CA could not accede to the conclusion that the real agreement between the parties was to employ Dagasdas as Superintendent. It stressed that Dagasdas left the Philippines pursuant to his employment contract indicating that he was to work as a Network Technician; when he arrived in Saudi Arabia and signed a new contract for the position of a Superintendent, the agreement was with no participation of GPGS, and said new contract was only between Dagasdas and ITM. It emphasized that after commencing work as Superintendent, Dagasdas realized that he could not perform his tasks, and "[s]eemingly, it was [Dagasdas] himself who voluntarily withdrew from his assigned work for lack of competence."[31] It faulted the NLRC for failing to consider that Dagasdas backed out as Superintendent on the excuse that the same required the skills of a Mechanical Engineer. In holding that Dagasdas' dismissal was legal, the CA gave credence to Dagasdas' Statement of Quitclaim and Final Settlement. It ruled that for having voluntarily accepted money from his employer, Dagasdas accepted his termination and released his employer from future financial obligations arising from his past employment with it. On January 28, 2013, the CA denied Dagasdas' Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, Dagasdas filed this Petition raising these grounds: [1] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT REVERSED THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.[32] [2] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED WITH ITS FINDINGS THAT THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY DAGASDAS IN ALKHOBAR IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE LATTER AND THAT IT WAS [H]IS PERSONAL ACT OR DECISION [TO SIGN] THE SAME.[33] [3] THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO GRAVELY ERRED IN FAULTING THE NLRC FOR HS FAILURE TO INVALID ARE OR DISCUSS THE FINAL SETTLEMENT AND STATEMENT OF QUITCLAIM SIGNED BY [DAGASDAS].[34] Dagasdas reiterates that he was only recruited "on paper" as a Network Technician but the real agreement between him and his employer was to engage him as elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64310 4/12