4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly LOUIE Anipan, ROBELITO Enjambre, SANDY Lumanta, ARSENIO 2 years 2 years 2 years 2007 2007 days 3 April 8 August 20 months and 5 2007 2007 days 29 March 26 July 20 months and 3 2007 2007 days 29 March 8 August 19 months and 21 2007 2007 days15 Again, the agency moved for reconsideration, reiterating its earlier arguments and, additionally, questioning the application of the Serrano ruling in the case because it was not yet final and executory. The NLRC denied the motion, prompting the agency to seek recourse from the CA through a petition for certiorari. The CA Decision The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.[16] It upheld the NLRC ruling that the respondents were illegally dismissed. It found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s rejection of the respondents’ resignation letters, and the accompanying quitclaim and release affidavits, as proof of their voluntary termination of employment. The CA stressed that the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with resignation. Moreover, it found nothing in the records to substantiate the agency’s contention that the respondents’ resignation was of their own accord; on the contrary, it considered the resignation letters “dubious for having been lopsidedly-worded to ensure that the petitioners (employer[s]) are free from any liability.”[17] The appellate court likewise refused to give credit to the compromise agreements that the respondents executed before the POEA. It agreed with the NLRC’s conclusion that the agreements pertain to the respondents’ charge of recruitment violations against the agency distinct from their illegal dismissal complaint, thus negating forum shopping by the respondents. Lastly, the CA found nothing legally wrong in the NLRC correcting itself (upon being reminded by the respondents), by adjusting the respondents’ salary award on the basis of the unexpired portion of their contracts, as enunciated in the Serrano case. The agency moved for, but failed to secure, a reconsideration of the CA decision.[18] The Petition The agency is now before the Court seeking a reversal of the CA dispositions, contending that the CA erred in: 1. affirming the NLRC’s finding that the respondents were illegally dismissed; 2. holding that the compromise agreements before the POEA pertain only to the respondents’ charge of recruitment violations against the agency; and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55155 5/15