3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly petition for certiorari.[25] The CA Ruling In a Decision[26] dated April 20, 2018, the CA affirmed the NLRC Decision with a modification directing HSTC and Esguerra to pay Cordero separation pay equivalent to one (1)-month salary for every year of service from March 1992 until finality of judgment.[27] While theCA concurred with the labor tribunals' finding that Cordero's employment was validly terminated for a just cause, it found that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh under the following circumstances: (a) Cordero worked for HSTC for twenty-four (24) years; (b) the incident while he was on duty was his first offense; (c) he had no derogatory record; and (d) he was already preventively suspended for the infractions he committed.[28] Accordingly, the CA remanded the case to the LA for the proper computation of separation pay.[29] Undeterred, both parties respectively moved for reconsideration.[30] In their motion for reconsideration, HSTC and Esguerra maintained that Cordero was validly dismissed; hence, there was no basis for the CA's award of separation pay. They likewise took exception to the CA's observation that the penalty of dismissal was "too harsh" under the circumstances, considering that there was just cause for the termination of Cordero's employment.[31] On the other hand, Cordero insisted in his motion for partial reconsideration that there was no just cause for dismissal, hence, he was illegally dismissed.[32] Both motions were denied in a Resolution[33] dated January 14, 2019; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The present controversy revolves around the CA's award of separation pay in favor of Cordero. In the petition docketed as G.R. No. 244144, HSTC and Esguerra submit that the CA erred in awarding separation pay in favor of Cordero, considering that there was just cause to validly dismiss him. Further, they disagree with the CA's ruling that the penalty of dismissal was "too harsh" under the circumstances for being contrary to law and prevailing jurisprudence. On the other hand, in the petition docketed as G.R. No. 244210, Cordero insists that the CA erred in affirming the labor tribunals' finding that he was validly dismissed and that he is not entitled to his monetary claims. The Court's Ruling The petition in G.R. No. 244144 is granted, while the petition in G.R. No. 244210 is denied. At the outset, the settled rule is that the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to resolving only questions of law. A question of law arises when doubt exists as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[34] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65989 3/9