THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 23 2002.

G.R. No. 150745 (Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Calamba vs. Mercedes N. Lamucho, et al.)

Petitioner seeks to set aside and annul the decision dated August 10, 2000 of the Court of Appeals and its subsequent resolution dated November 12, 2000 rejecting pleas for reconsideration.

The generative facts of the case are as follows:

On January 12, 1996, several students of herein petitioner turned over to the principal of the High School Department some tickets labelled “Crusade for Justice Project” together with their written statements naming faculty members Mercedes Lamucho, Gilda Villanueva, Teresita Garcia and Araceli Gecale as the sources of the tickets. The incident prompted the Director for Academic affairs to create a committee to investigate the matter. On April 3, 1996, the Investigating Committee submitted its report finding the four teachers guilty of violating Section 94 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and recommended their dismissal from the employment of petitioner. Thus, the four faculty members filed a case for illegal dismissal in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board which referred the case to a Voluntary Arbitrator. Thereafter, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision declaring that the dismissal was unjust and illegal. Petitioner, thus appealed to the Court of Appeals which ruled that the dismissal of Lamucho, Garcia and Villanueva was valid and legal, while that of herein respondent Gecale was held to be illegal.

Hence, this petition which is unimpressed with merit. It should at once be apparent that the resolution of the instant case entails a review of the factual conclusions of the appellate court and the evidentiary bases thereof. Such an assessment is not, as a rule, proper in appeals from the Court of Appeals which should be confined to a consideration and determination only of issues of law as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive (Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 90 [1998]). This is especially true in this case because the findings of fact of the appellate court with respect to herein respondent, concur with those of the Voluntary Arbitrator. To reiterate, this Court’s jurisdiction is only limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or they are glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion (Noceda vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 504 [1999]).

Likewise, the instant petition lacks affidavit of proof of service by registered mail.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y CARREON

Clerk of Court