REMCIVPRO 2018 (GR. 208396, Ebuenga vs. Southfield Agencies)
Uploaded by
Michael Parreño VillagraciaREMCIVPRO 2018 (GR. 208396, Ebuenga vs. Southfield Agencies)
Uploaded by
Michael Parreño Villagracia2018 (GR. 208396, EBUENGA VS.
SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES)
Rule 45 Petition – Exceptions to Question of Law – Petitioner’s Burden
FACTS: Ebuenga was hired as a chief cook in a ship. About 2 months in, he wrote a letter to his employer,
the respondents, for the need to be repatriated immediately because of family problems. The respondents
acted favorably on his request.
He then had himself checked at a private hospital without first consulting with the designated company
physician, he underwent an examination which resulted him to undergo physical therapy. He went back to
his hometown and saw a doctor who issued a permanent disability report, rendering him unable to work as
a seafarer. He then filed a complaint against respondents for permanent disability benefits.
He asserts that he he was only coerced by the respondents. That he reported a death of a colleague to the
Intl. Transport Worker’s Federation and that this caused friction in his relationship with his superiors. He
also informed them that he was experiencing medical problems, but this was not acted upon. When he
sought medical help from them, he was allegedly denied by the company physician.
Respondents denied that there was any incident where the petitioner experienced any medical problems.
Rather, they noted that he was delinquent crew member, always agitating his colleagues and complaining.
Furthermore, he cannot apply for the benefits because he did not follow procedure which is to undergo with
an exam with the company physician.
The NLRC denied the petition and the MR. Petitioner then filed a R65 petition in the CA alleging grave
abuse by the NLRC which was also denied, Hence this petition R45 Petition.
ISSUES: WON the petitioner warrants an exception to the R45 petition limits on questions of law.
RULING: No, petitioner did not even substantiate his claim why his petition deserves an exception.
RATIO: R45 Petitions are limited to resolving pure questions of law. In a R45 review, the SC considers the
correctness of the assailed CA decision.
The SC will not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the
findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. The factual
findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.
The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA were consistent in finding that petitioner's claim of presenting
himself for examination is unsupported by evidence. The CA emphasized that his narration of facts is bereft
of details as to the alleged report.
Petitioner could not state when he actually wanted to have himself examined. He could neither identify the
person he approached for his request nor disclose the manner and circumstances of his being refused. His
story only was that he went to respondent’s office, was refused, and had to go to another doctor.
Considering his allegations, coupled with the burden of repudiating the uniform findings of the 3 tribunals,
he merely annexed nothing to his Petition and Reply, except the assailed CA decision and resolution.
His plea to have overturn the uniform antecedent findings of 3 tribunals requires more than just attaching a
copy of the immediately preceding judgments.
There are exceptions to the rule that R45 petitions may only be concerned with pure questions of law. But
these exceptions are not occasioned by their mere invocation.
A party who files a R45 Petition and asserts that his case warrants a review of factual questions bears the
burden of proving 2 things:
First is the basic exceptionality of his case that this Court must go out of its way to revisit the evidence.
Second is the specific factual conclusion that he wants this Court to adopt in place of that which was made
by the lower tribunals.
This dual burden requires a party to not merely plead or aver, but to demonstrate and prove. His
evidentiary task persists before this Court precisely because he pleads this Court to sustain different factual
conclusions. Petitioner's deficiencies manifest his failure to discharge this burden.
