Prince Transport, Inc. and Mr. Renato Claros v. Diosdado Garcia, Luisito Garcia, Et. Al.

G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011

FACTS:
Prince Transport, Inc. (PTI), is a company engaged in the business of transporting passengers by
land; respondents were hired either as drivers, conductors, mechanics or inspectors, except for
respondent Diosdado Garcia (Garcia), who was assigned as Operations Manager. Sometime in
October 2007 the commissions received by the respondents were reduced to 7 to 9% from 8 to
10%. This led respondents and other employees of PTI to hold a series of meetings to discuss the
protection of their interests as employees. Ranato Claros, president of PTI, made known to
Garcia his objections to the formation of a union and in order to block the continued formation of
the union, PTI caused the transfer of all union members and sympathizers to one of its subcompanies, Lubas Transport (Lubas). The business of Lubas deteriorated because of the refusal
of PTI to maintain and repair the units being used therein, which resulted in the virtual stoppage
of its operations and respondents' loss of employment. Hence, the respondent-employees filed
complaints against PTI for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. PTI contended that it has
nothing to do with the management and operations of Lubas as well as the control and
supervision of the latter's employees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the order to reinstate respondents was valid considering that the issue of
reinstatement was never brought up before the CA and respondents never questioned the award
of separation pay.
HELD:
YES. It is clear from the complaints filed by respondents that they are seeking reinstatement.
Section 2 (c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading shall specify the relief
sought, but may add a general prayer for such further or other reliefs as may be deemed just and
equitable. Under this rule, a court can grant the relief warranted by the allegation and the proof
even if it is not specifically sought by the injured party; the inclusion of a general prayer may
justify the grant of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought, if the
facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant. The general prayer is
broad enough to justify extension of a remedy different from or together with the specific
remedy sought. Even without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may be granted by
the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant. The court
shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed
for. The prayer in the complaint for other reliefs equitable and just in the premises justifies the
grant of a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for. In the instant case, aside from their specific
prayer for reinstatement, respondents, in their separate complaints, prayed for such reliefs which
are deemed just and equitable.