Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision,1 dated May 31, 2001,
and the resolution,2 dated November 27, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-
G.R. SP. No. 63160, annulling the resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) and reinstating the ruling of the Labor Arbiter which found
petitioner Rolando Tan guilty of illegally dismissing private respondent Leovigildo
Lagrama and ordering him to pay the latter the amount of P136,849.99 by way
of separation pay, backwages, and damages.
Petitioner Rolando Tan is the president of Supreme Theater Corporation and the
general manager of Crown and Empire Theaters in Butuan City. Private
respondent Leovigildo Lagrama is a painter, making ad billboards and murals
for the motion pictures shown at the Empress, Supreme, and Crown Theaters for
more than 10 years, from September 1, 1988 to October 17, 1998.
On October 17, 1998, private respondent Lagrama was summoned by Tan and
upbraided: "Nangihi na naman ka sulod sa imong drawinganan." ("You again
urinated inside your work area.") When Lagrama asked what Tan was saying,
Tan told him, "Ayaw daghang estorya. Dili ko gusto nga mo-drawing ka pa.
Guikan karon, wala nay drawing. Gawas." ("Don't say anything further. I don't
want you to draw anymore. From now on, no more drawing. Get out.")
Lagrama denied the charge against him. He claimed that he was not the only
one who entered the drawing area and that, even if the charge was true, it was
a minor infraction to warrant his dismissal. However, everytime he spoke, Tan
shouted "Gawas" ("Get out"), leaving him with no other choice but to leave the
premises.
Lagrama filed a complaint with the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. X of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Butuan City. He alleged that he
had been illegally dismissed and sought reinvestigation and payment of 13th
month pay, service incentive leave pay, salary differential, and damages.
Petitioner Tan denied that Lagrama was his employee. He asserted that
Lagrama was an independent contractor who did his work according to his
methods, while he (petitioner) was only interested in the result thereof. He cited
the admission of Lagrama during the conferences before the Labor Arbiter that
he was paid on a fixed piece-work basis, i.e., that he was paid for every painting
turned out as ad billboard or mural for the pictures shown in the three theaters,
on the basis of a "no mural/billboard drawn, no pay" policy. He submitted the
affidavits of other cinema owners, an amusement park owner, and those
supervising the construction of a church to prove that the services of Lagrama
were contracted by them. He denied having dismissed Lagrama and alleged
that it was the latter who refused to paint for him after he was scolded for his
habits.
B. Backwages - 47,200.00
(from 17 October 1998 to 17
June 1999)
E. Damages - 10,000.00
TOTAL [P136,849.99]
Petitioner Rolando Tan appealed to the NLRC Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro
City, which, on June 30, 2000, rendered a decision4 finding Lagrama to be an
independent contractor, and for this reason reversing the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.
Respondent Lagrama filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied for
lack of merit by the NLRC in a resolution of September 29, 2000. He then filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals found that petitioner exercised control over Lagrama's
work by dictating the time when Lagrama should submit his billboards and
murals and setting rules on the use of the work area and rest room. Although it
found that Lagrama did work for other cinema owners, the appeals court held it
to be a mere sideline insufficient to prove that he was not an employee of Tan.
The appeals court also found no evidence of any intention on the part of
Lagrama to leave his job or sever his employment relationship with Tan.
Accordingly, on May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Resolutions of the Public Respondent issued on June 30, 2000 and
September 29, 2000 are ANNULLED. The Decision of the Honorable Labor
Arbiter Rogelio P. Legaspi on June 17, 1999 is hereby REINSTATED.
I. With all due respect, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP NO. 63160 is bereft of any finding that Public Respondent NLRC,
5th Division, had no jurisdiction or exceeded it or otherwise gravely
abused its discretion in its Resolution of 30 June 2000 in NLRC CA-NO. M-
004950-99.
II. With all due respect, respondent Court of Appeals, absent any positive
finding on its part that the Resolution of 30 June 2000 of the NLRC is not
supported by substantial evidence, is without authority to substitute its
conclusion for that of said NLRC.
IV. With all due respect, respondent Court of Appeals' opening statement
in its decision as to "employment," "monthly salary of P1,475.00" and "work
schedule from Monday to Saturday, from 8:00 o'clock in the morning up to
5:00 o'clock in the afternoon" as "facts" is not supported by the evidence
on record.
V. With all due respect, the case of Lambo, et al., v. NLRC, et al., 317
SCRA 420 [G.R. No. 111042 October 26, 1999] relied upon by respondent
Court of Appeals is not applicable to the peculiar circumstances of this
case.6
I.
First. The existence in this case of the first element is undisputed. It was petitioner
who engaged the services of Lagrama without the intervention of a third party.
It is the existence of the second element, the power of control, that requires
discussion here.
In the case at bar, albeit petitioner Tan claims that private respondent Lagrama
was an independent contractor and never his employee, the evidence shows
that the latter performed his work as painter under the supervision and control of
petitioner. Lagrama worked in a designated work area inside the Crown Theater
of petitioner, for the use of which petitioner prescribed rules. The rules included
the observance of cleanliness and hygiene and a prohibition against urinating in
the work area and any place other than the toilet or the rest rooms.9 Petitioner's
control over Lagrama's work extended not only to the use of the work area, but
also to the result of Lagrama's work, and the manner and means by which the
work was to be accomplished.
Moreover, it would appear that petitioner not only provided the workplace, but
supplied as well the materials used for the paintings, because he admitted that
he paid Lagrama only for the latter's services.10
Private respondent Lagrama claimed that he worked daily, from 8 o'clock in the
morning to 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Petitioner disputed this allegation and
maintained that he paid Lagrama P1,475.00 per week for the murals for the
three theaters which the latter usually finished in 3 to 4 days in one week.11 Even
assuming this to be true, the fact that Lagrama worked for at least 3 to 4 days a
week proves regularity in his employment by petitioner.
Second. That petitioner had the right to hire and fire was admitted by him in his
position paper submitted to the NLRC, the pertinent portions of which stated:
Complainant did not know how to use the available comfort rooms or
toilets in and about his work premises. He was urinating right at the place
where he was working when it was so easy for him, as everybody else did
and had he only wanted to, to go to the comfort rooms. But no, the
complainant had to make a virtual urinal out of his work place! The place
then stunk to high heavens, naturally, to the consternation of respondents
and everyone who could smell the malodor.
...
Given such circumstances, the respondents had every right, nay all the
compelling reason, to fire him from his painting job upon discovery and his
admission of such acts. Nonetheless, though thoroughly scolded, he was
not fired. It was he who stopped to paint for respondents.12
The Rules Implementing the Labor Code require every employer to pay his
employees by means of payroll.17 The payroll should show among other things,
the employee's rate of pay, deductions made, and the amount actually paid to
the employee. In the case at bar, petitioner did not present the payroll to
support his claim that Lagrama was not his employee, raising speculations
whether his failure to do so proves that its presentation would be adverse to his
case.18
The fact that Lagrama was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not
conclusive on the question of whether he was an employee of
petitioner.21 Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded for his failure or even
neglect to perform his obligation.22
Neither does the fact that Lagrama painted for other persons affect or alter his
employment relationship with petitioner. That he did so only during weekends
has not been denied by petitioner. On the other hand, Samuel Villalba, for
whom Lagrama had rendered service, admitted in a sworn statement that he
was told by Lagrama that the latter worked for petitioner.23
Lagrama had been employed by petitioner since 1988. Under the law,
therefore, he is deemed a regular employee and is thus entitled to security of
tenure, as provided in Art. 279 of Labor Code:
ART. 279. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the
employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just
cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to
the time of his actual reinstatement.
This Court has held that if the employee has been performing the job for at least
one year, even if not continuously but intermittently, the repeated and
continuing need for its performance is sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not
indispensability, of that activity to the business of his employer. Hence, the
employment is also considered regular, although with respect only to such
activity, and while such activity exists.24
In the present recourse, the Private Respondent has not established clear
proof of the intention of the Petitioner to abandon his job or to sever the
employment relationship between him and the Private Respondent. On
the contrary, it was Private Respondent who told Petitioner that he did not
want the latter to draw for him and thereafter refused to give him work to
do or any mural or billboard to paint or draw on.
More, after the repeated refusal of the Private Respondent to give
Petitioner murals or billboards to work on, the Petitioner filed, with the Sub-
Regional Arbitration Branch No. X of the National Labor Relations
Commission, a Complaint for "Illegal Dismissal and Money Claims." Such
act has, as the Supreme Court declared, negate any intention to sever
employment relationship. . . .27
II.
The second issue is whether private respondent Lagrama was illegally dismissed.
To begin, the employer has the burden of proving the lawfulness of his
employee's dismissal.28 The validity of the charge must be clearly established in a
manner consistent with due process. The Implementing Rules of the Labor
Code29 provide that no worker shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized
cause provided by law and after due process. This provision has two aspects: (1)
the legality of the act of dismissal, that is, dismissal under the grounds provided
for under Article 282 of the Labor Code and (2) the legality in the manner of
dismissal. The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just
cause, while illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal without due
process.30
In this case, by his refusal to give Lagrama work to do and ordering Lagrama to
get out of his sight as the latter tried to explain his side, petitioner made it plain
that Lagrama was dismissed. Urinating in a work place other than the one
designated for the purpose by the employer constitutes violation of reasonable
regulations intended to promote a healthy environment under Art. 282(1) of the
Labor Code for purposes of terminating employment, but the same must be
shown by evidence. Here there is no evidence that Lagrama did urinate in a
place other than a rest room in the premises of his work.
Instead of ordering his reinstatement as provided in Art. 279 of the Labor Code,
the Labor Arbiter found that the relationship between the employer and the
employee has been so strained that the latter's reinstatement would no longer
serve any purpose. The parties do not dispute this finding. Hence, the grant of
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate. This is of course in addition
to the payment of backwages which, in accordance with the ruling
in Bustamante v. NLRC,31 should be computed from the time of Lagrama's
dismissal up to the time of the finality of this decision, without any deduction or
qualification.
The Bureau of Working Conditions32 classifies workers paid by results into two
groups, namely; (1) those whose time and performance is supervised by the
employer, and (2) those whose time and performance is unsupervised by the
employer. The first involves an element of control and supervision over the
manner the work is to be performed, while the second does not. If a piece
worker is supervised, there is an employer-employee relationship, as in this case.
However, such an employee is not entitled to service incentive leave pay since,
as pointed out in Makati Haberdashery v. NLRC33 and Mark Roche International
v. NLRC,34 he is paid a fixed amount for work done, regardless of the time he
spent in accomplishing such work.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing
that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error. The decision of the
Court of Appeals, reversing the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission and reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter, is AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the backwages and other benefits awarded to private
respondent Leovigildo Lagrama should be computed from the time of his
dismissal up to the time of the finality of this decision, without any deduction and
qualification. However, the service incentive leave pay awarded to him
is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
3 CA Rollo, p. 61.
4 Per Commissioner Oscar N. Abella and concurred in by Presiding
Commissioner Salic B. Dumarpa and Commissioner Leon G. Gonzaga, Jr.
7 See Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, April 11, 2002; Santos v.
NLRC, 293 SCRA 113 (1998) citing Jimenez v. NLRC, 256 SCRA 84 (1996);
Sandigan Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. v. NLRC, 254 SCRA 126 (1996); and
Viaña v. Al-Lagadan, 99 Phil 408 (1956); "Brotherhood" Labor Unity
Movement of the Philippines v. Zamora, 147 SCRA 49 (1987).
12 NLRC Position Paper for Respondent [Tan], pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 72-73
(underscoring supplied).
13 See Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584 (1999); Austria v. NLRC,
312 SCRA 410 (1999).
15 Lambo v. NLRC, 317 SCRA 420 (1999) citing Villuga v. NLRC, 225 SCRA
537 (1993).
18 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, §3(e). See Villaruel v. NLRC, 284
SCRA 399 (1998).
19 Ganzon v. NLRC, 321 SCRA 434 (1999); Bernardo v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 186
(1999).
20 NLRC Position Paper for Respondent [Tan], p. 4; Rollo, p. 74.
23 CA Rollo, p. 167.
24 Conti v. NLRC, 271 SCRA 114 (1997) citing De Leon v. NLRC, 176 SCRA
615 (1989).
25 Hyatt Taxi Services Inc. v. Catinoy, G.R. No. 143204, June 26,
2001 citing Mendoza v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 846 (1999).
28 EDI Staff Builders International, Inc. v. Magsino, G.R. No. 139430, June 20,
2001 citing Farrol v. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 331 (2000).
34 313 SCRA 356 (1999) citing Omnibus Rules Implementing The Labor
Code, Bk. III, Rule V, §1(d).
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
THE FACTS
On 03 January 2000, while respondent was driving Autobus No. 114 along Sta.
Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, the bus he was driving accidentally bumped the rear
portion of Autobus No. 124, as the latter vehicle suddenly stopped at a sharp
curve without giving any warning.
a. his 13th month pay from the date of his hiring to the date of his
dismissal, presently computed at P78,117.87;
b. his service incentive leave pay for all the years he had been in
service with the respondent, presently computed at P13,788.05.
Not satisfied with the decision of the Labor Arbiter, petitioner appealed the
decision to the NLRC which rendered its decision on 28 September 2001, the
decretal portion of which reads:
[T]he Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851,
particularly Sec. 3 provides:
In other words, the award of service incentive leave pay was maintained.
Petitioner thus sought a reconsideration of this aspect, which was subsequently
denied in a Resolution by the NLRC dated 31 October 2001.
Displeased with only the partial grant of its appeal to the NLRC, petitioner
sought the review of said decision with the Court of Appeals which was
subsequently denied by the appellate court in a Decision dated 06 May 2002,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
ISSUES
1. Whether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave;
2. Whether or not the three (3)-year prescriptive period provided under Article
291 of the Labor Code, as amended, is applicable to respondent’s claim of
service incentive leave pay.
The disposition of the first issue revolves around the proper interpretation of
Article 95 of the Labor Code vis-à-vis Section 1(D), Rule V, Book III of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code which provides:
(a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service
shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with
pay.
A careful perusal of said provisions of law will result in the conclusion that the
grant of service incentive leave has been delimited by the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code to apply only to those employees not
explicitly excluded by Section 1 of Rule V. According to the Implementing Rules,
Service Incentive Leave shall not apply to employees classified as "field
personnel." The phrase "other employees whose performance is unsupervised by
the employer" must not be understood as a separate classification of employees
to which service incentive leave shall not be granted. Rather, it serves as an
amplification of the interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the
Labor Code as those "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty."8
The same is true with respect to the phrase "those who are engaged on task or
contract basis, purely commission basis." Said phrase should be related with
"field personnel," applying the rule on ejusdem generis that general and
unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they
follow.9 Hence, employees engaged on task or contract basis or paid on purely
commission basis are not automatically exempted from the grant of service
incentive leave, unless, they fall under the classification of field personnel.
According to Article 82 of the Labor Code, "field personnel" shall refer to non-
agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the
principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual
hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. This
definition is further elaborated in the Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC),
Advisory Opinion to Philippine Technical-Clerical Commercial Employees
Association10 which states that:
To this discussion by the BWC, the petitioner differs and postulates that under
said advisory opinion, no employee would ever be considered a field personnel
because every employer, in one way or another, exercises control over his
employees. Petitioner further argues that the only criterion that should be
considered is the nature of work of the employee in that, if the employee’s job
requires that he works away from the principal office like that of a messenger or
a bus driver, then he is inevitably a field personnel.
We are not persuaded. At this point, it is necessary to stress that the definition of
a "field personnel" is not merely concerned with the location where the
employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that the
employee’s performance is unsupervised by the employer. As discussed above,
field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the
principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in
the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Thus, in order to
conclude whether an employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to
ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable
certainty by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be made as to whether
or not the employee’s time and performance are constantly supervised by the
employer.
It is of judicial notice that along the routes that are plied by these bus
companies, there are its inspectors assigned at strategic places who
board the bus and inspect the passengers, the punched tickets, and the
conductor’s reports. There is also the mandatory once-a-week car barn or
shop day, where the bus is regularly checked as to its mechanical,
electrical, and hydraulic aspects, whether or not there are problems
thereon as reported by the driver and/or conductor. They too, must be at
specific place as [sic] specified time, as they generally observe prompt
departure and arrival from their point of origin to their point of destination.
In each and every depot, there is always the Dispatcher whose function is
precisely to see to it that the bus and its crew leave the premises at
specific times and arrive at the estimated proper time. These, are present
in the case at bar. The driver, the complainant herein, was therefore
under constant supervision while in the performance of this work. He
cannot be considered a field personnel.11
We agree in the above disquisition. Therefore, as correctly concluded by the
appellate court, respondent is not a field personnel but a regular employee who
performs tasks usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade of petitioner’s
business. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to the grant of service incentive
leave.
The response to this query inevitably leads us to the correlative issue of whether
or not the three (3)-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code
is applicable to respondent’s claim of service incentive leave pay.
Article 291 of the Labor Code states that all money claims arising from employer-
employee relationship shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the
cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
In the application of this section of the Labor Code, the pivotal question to be
answered is when does the cause of action for money claims accrue in order to
determine the reckoning date of the three-year prescriptive period.
It is settled jurisprudence that a cause of action has three elements, to wit, (1) a
right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises
or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect
or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such
defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.12
To properly construe Article 291 of the Labor Code, it is essential to ascertain the
time when the third element of a cause of action transpired. Stated differently,
in the computation of the three-year prescriptive period, a determination must
be made as to the period when the act constituting a violation of the workers’
right to the benefits being claimed was committed. For if the cause of action
accrued more than three (3) years before the filing of the money claim, said
cause of action has already prescribed in accordance with Article 291.13
It is essential at this point, however, to recognize that the service incentive leave
is a curious animal in relation to other benefits granted by the law to every
employee. In the case of service incentive leave, the employee may choose to
either use his leave credits or commute it to its monetary equivalent if not
exhausted at the end of the year.15 Furthermore, if the employee entitled to
service incentive leave does not use or commute the same, he is entitled upon
his resignation or separation from work to the commutation of his accrued
service incentive leave. As enunciated by the Court in Fernandez v. NLRC:16
The clear policy of the Labor Code is to grant service incentive leave pay
to workers in all establishments, subject to a few exceptions. Section 2,
Rule V, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides that
"[e]very employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be
entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay." Service
incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has
served "within 12 months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from
the date the employee started working, including authorized absences
and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as
a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment
contracts, is less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be
considered as one year." It is also "commutable to its money equivalent if
not used or exhausted at the end of the year." In other words, an
employee who has served for one year is entitled to it. He may use it as
leave days or he may collect its monetary value. To limit the award to
three years, as the solicitor general recommends, is to unduly restrict such
right.17 [Italics supplied]
Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this peculiarity of the service
incentive leave, we can conclude that the three (3)-year prescriptive period
commences, not at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled
to the commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time when the
employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation
or upon termination of the employee’s services, as the case may be.
The above construal of Art. 291, vis-à-vis the rules on service incentive leave, is in
keeping with the rudimentary principle that in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing
regulations, the workingman’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration.18 The policy is to extend the applicability of the decree to a
greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law,
which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum
aid and protection to labor.19
In the case at bar, respondent had not made use of his service incentive leave
nor demanded for its commutation until his employment was terminated by
petitioner. Neither did petitioner compensate his accumulated service incentive
leave pay at the time of his dismissal. It was only upon his filing of a complaint for
illegal dismissal, one month from the time of his dismissal, that respondent
demanded from his former employer commutation of his accumulated leave
credits. His cause of action to claim the payment of his accumulated service
incentive leave thus accrued from the time when his employer dismissed him
and failed to pay his accumulated leave credits.
Therefore, the prescriptive period with respect to his claim for service incentive
leave pay only commenced from the time the employer failed to compensate
his accumulated service incentive leave pay at the time of his dismissal. Since
respondent had filed his money claim after only one month from the time of his
dismissal, necessarily, his money claim was filed within the prescriptive period
provided for by Article 291 of the Labor Code.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
3 NLRC NCR CA No. 026584-2000 (NLRC Case No. RAB CAR 02-0088-00),
dated 28 September 2001.
12 Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Ople, G.R. No. 57642, 16 March 1989, 171 SCRA
250, citing Agric. Credit & Cooperative Financing Administration v. Alpha
Ins. & Surety Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-24566, 29 July 1968, 24 SCRA 151; Summit
Guaranty and Insurance Co., Inc. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-50997, 30
June 1987, 151 SCRA 389; Tormon v. Cutanda, G.R. No. L-18785, 23
December 1963, 9 SCRA 698.
14 See E. Ganzon, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123769, 22 December 1999, 321
SCRA 434.
15 Fernandez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 105892, 28 January 1998, 349 Phil 65.
16 Ibid.
FIRST DIVISION
GARCIA, J.:
By this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Roque S. Duterte seeks the
review and setting aside of the decision1 dated June 20, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 71729, as reiterated in its resolution2 of October
5, 2003, affirming an earlier resolution3 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) which ruled that petitioner was not illegally dismissed from
employment due to disease under Article 284 of the Labor Code.
The facts:
On November 8, 1998, petitioner had his first heart attack and was confined for
two weeks at the Philippine Heart Center (PHC). This was confirmed by
respondent KTC which admitted that petitioner was declared on sick leave with
corresponding notification.
In February 1999, petitioner suffered a second heart attack and was again
confined at the PHC. Upon release, he stayed home and spent time to
recuperate.
In June 1999, petitioner attempted to report back to work but was told to look
for another job because he was unfit. Respondents refused to declare petitioner
fit to work unless physically examined by the company physician. Respondents’
promise to pay petitioner his separation pay turned out to be an empty one.
Instead, petitioner was presented, for his signature, a document as proof of his
receipt of the amount of P14,375.00 as first installment of his Social Security
System (SSS) benefits. Having received no such amount, petitioner refused to
affix his signature thereon and instead requested for the necessary documents
from respondents to enable him to claim his SSS benefits, but the latter did not
heed his request.
On November 11, 1999, petitioner filed against his employer a complaint for
illegal dismissal and damages.
In a decision4 dated September 26, 2000, the labor arbiter found for the
petitioner. However, while categorically declaring that petitioner’s dismissal was
illegal, the labor arbiter, instead of applying Article 2795 of the Labor Code on
illegal dismissals, applied Article 284 on Disease as ground for termination on the
rationale that since the respondents admitted that petitioner could not be
allowed back to work because of the latter’s disease, the case fell within the
ambit of Article 284. We quote the fallo of the labor arbiter’s decision:
3. Service Incentive Leave pay for three (3) years in the amount of
Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos.
All other claims herein sought are hereby denied for lack of merit and
factual basis.
SO ORDERED.
On respondents’ appeal, the NLRC, in its Resolution6 of April 24, 2002, set aside
the labor arbiter’s decision, ruling that Article 284 of the Labor Code has no
application to this case, there being "no illegal dismissal to speak of." The NLRC
accordingly dismissed petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal, thus:
We REVERSE.
At bottom, this case involves the simple issue of the legality of one’s termination
from employment made complicated, however, by over analysis. Simply put,
the question at hand pivots on who has the onus of presenting the necessary
medical certificate to justify what would otherwise be classified as legal or
illegal, as the case may be, dismissal from the service. The following may be
another formulation of the issue: For purposes of Article 284 of the Labor Code,
would the dismissal of an employee on the ground of disease under the said
Article 284 still require the employer to present a certification from a competent
public health authority that the disease is of such a nature that it could not be
cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment? To
both the NLRC and the CA, a dismissal on the ground of disease under Article
284 of the Code is illegal only if the employee himself presents the required
certification from the proper health authority. Since, as in this case, petitioner
failed to produce such certification, his dismissal could not be illegal.
Neither can it be gainsaid that Article 284 of the Labor Code applies in
the instant case since the complainant [petitioner] failed to establish that
he is suffering from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited
by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees nor
was he able to prove that his illness is of such nature or at such stage that
it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper
treatment.8
Prescinding from the above, there is no illegal dismissal to speak of. This
finding is further strengthened by the fact that no termination letter or
formal notice of dismissal was adduced to prove that complainant’s
services have been terminated. Considering that no illegal dismissal took
place, the complainant’s claim that his right to due process of law had
been violated finds no application to the case at bar. (Emphasis added).
In a very real sense, both the NLRC and the appellate court placed on the
petitioner the burden of establishing, by a certification of a competent public
authority, that his ailment is such that it cannot be cured within a period of six
months even with proper medical treatment. And pursuing their logic, petitioner
could not claim having been illegally dismissed due to disease, failing, as he did,
to present such certification.
To be sure, the NLRC’s above posture is, to say the least, without basis in law and
jurisprudence. And when the CA affirmed the NLRC, the appellate court in
effect placed on the petitioner the onus of proving his entitlement to separation
pay and thereby validated herein respondents’ act of dismissing him from
employment even without proof of existence of a legal ground for dismissal.
The law is unequivocal: the employer, before it can legally dismiss its employee
on the ground of disease, must adduce a certification from a competent public
authority that the disease of which its employee is suffering is of such nature or
at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with
proper treatment.
Here, the record does not contain the required certification. And when the
respondents asked the petitioner to look for another job because he was unfit to
work, such unilateral declaration, even if backed up by the findings of its
company doctors, did not meet the quantum requirement mandated by the
law, i.e., there must be a certification by a competent public authority.9
For sure, the posture taken by both the NLRC and the CA is inconsistent with this
Court’s pronouncement in Tan v. National Labor Relations Commission,10 thus:
In Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC,11 the Court explains why the
submission of the requisite medical certificate is for the employer’s compliance,
thus:
The requirement for a medical certificate under Article 284 of the Labor
Code cannot be dispensed with; otherwise, it would sanction the
unilateral and arbitrary determination by the employer of the gravity or
extent of the employee’s illness and thus defeat the public policy on the
protection of labor.
In thus ruling out an illegal dismissal situation in the instant case, the CA
effectively agreed with the NLRC’s view that the fact of dismissal must be
evidenced by positive and overt acts, citing Veterans Phil. Scout Security
Agency v. NLRC.12 Said case, however, is not on all fours with the present one.
In Veterans, the employer offered the complainant-employee a monthly cash
allowance and other benefit pending a new assignment. Therein, the employee
was not forthrightly nor constructively dismissed. In fact, the employee
in Veterans was found to be in bad faith as he filed his complaint for illegal
dismissal the day immediately after he accepted the company’s offer of
employment benefits. Hence, the Court’s ruling in Veterans that the fact of
dismissal must be evidenced by positive and overt acts indicating the intention
to dismiss. These considerations do not obtain here. Petitioner was not allowed
back to work. Neither did he receive any monetary assistance from his
employer, and, worse, respondents refused to give him the necessary
documents to enable him to claim his SSS benefits.
Much was made by the NLRC – and the CA – about petitioner’s refusal to
comply with respondents’ order to submit a medical certificate – irresistibly
implying that such refusal is what constrained them to refuse to take petitioner
back in.
As a final consideration, the Court notes that the NLRC, as sustained by the CA,
considered the petitioner as a field worker and, on that basis, denied his claim
for benefits under Articles 9413 to 9514 of the Labor Code, such as holiday pay
and service incentive leave pay. Article 82 of the Code lists personnel who are
not entitled to the benefits aforementioned.15 Among the excluded group are
"field personnel," referring to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform
their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the
employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined
with reasonable certainty. As a general proposition, field personnel are those
whose job/service are not or cannot be effectively monitored by the employer
or his representative, their workplace being away from the principal office and
whose hours and days of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Field personnel are paid specific amount for rendering specific service or
performing specific work.
All told, we rule and so hold that petitioner’s dismissal did not comply with both
the substantive and procedural aspects of due process. Clearly, his dismissal is
tainted with invalidity.17
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
2 Id. at 33.
3 Id. at 46-52.
4 Id. at 40-45.
7 Id. at 52.
8 Id. at 51.
9 Cebu Royal Plant v. Deputy Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-58639, August
12, 1987, 153 SCRA 38.
12 G.R. Nos. L-78062 and 83927, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 347.
13 ART. 94. RIGHT TO HOLIDAY PAY. – (a) Every worker shall be paid his
regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service
establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; xxx
14 ART. 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE. – (a) Every employee who
has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly
service incentive leave of five days with pay.
17 Sy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA
301, 312.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 123938 May 21, 1998
LABOR CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) for and in behalf of its members,
ANA MARIE OCAMPO, MARY INTAL, ANNABEL CARESO, MARLENE MELQIADES,
IRENE JACINTO, NANCY GARCIA, IMELDA SARMIENTO, LENITA VIRAY, GINA
JACINTO, ROSEMARIE DEL ROSARIO, CATHERINE ASPURNA, WINNIE PENA, VIVIAN
BAA, EMILY LAGMAN, LILIAN MARFIL, NANCY DERACO, JANET DERACO, MELODY
JACINTO, CAROLYN DIZON, IMELDA MANALOTO, NORY VIRAY, ELIZA SALAZAR,
GIGI MANALOTO, JOSEFINA BASILIO, MARY ANN MAYATI, ZENAIDA GARCIA,
MERLY CANLAS, ERLINDA MANALANG, ANGELINA QUIAMBAO, LANIE GARCIA,
ELVIRA PIEDRA, LOURDES PANLILIO, LUISA PANLILIO, LERIZA PANLILIO, ALMA
CASTRO, ALDA DAVID, MYRA T. OLALIA, MARIFE PINLAC, NENITA DE GUZMAN,
JULIE GACAD, EVELYN MANALO, NORA PATIO, JANETH CARREON, ROWENA
MENDOZA, ROWENA MANALO, LENY GARCIA, FELISISIMA PATIO, SUSANA
SALOMON, JOYDEE LANSANGAN, REMEDIOS AGUAS, JEANIE LANSANGAN,
ELIZABETH MERCADO, JOSELYN MANALESE, BERNADETH RALAR, LOLITA ESPIRITU,
AGNES SALAS, VIRGINIA MENDIOLA, GLENDA SALITA, JANETH RALAR, ERLINDA
BASILIO, CORA PATIO, ANTONIA CALMA, AGNES CARESO, GEMMA BONUS,
MARITESS OCAMPO, LIBERTY GELISANGA, JANETH MANARANG, AMALIA DELA
CRUZ, EVA CUEVAS, TERESA MANIAGO, ARCELY PEREZ, LOIDA BIE, ROSITA
CANLAS, ANALIZA ESGUERRA, LAILA MANIAGO, JOSIE MANABAT, ROSARIO
DIMATULAC, NYMPA TUAZON, DAIZY TUASON, ERLINDA NAVARRO, EMILY
MANARANG, EMELITA CAYANAN, MERCY CAYANAN, LUZVIMINDA CAYANAN,
ANABEL MANALO, SONIA DIZON, ERNA CANLAS, MARIAN BENEDICTA, DOLORES
DOLETIN, JULIE DAVID, GRACE VILLANUEVA, VIRGINIA MAGBAG, CORAZON
RILLION, PRECY MANALILI, ELENA RONOZ, IMELDA MENDOZA, EDNA CANLAS and
ANGELA CANLAS, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EMPIRE FOOD PRODUCTS, its
Proprietor/President & Manager, MR. GONZALO KEHYENG and MRS. EVELYN
KEHYENG, respondents.
6. That parties jointly and mutually agreed that upon signing of this
Agreement, no Harassments [sic], Threats, Interferences [sic] of their
respective rights under the law, no Vengeance or Revenge by
each partner nor any act of ULP which might disrupt the operations
of the business;
Toward this end, therefore, it is Our considered view [that] the case
should be remanded to the Labor Arbiter of origin for further
proceedings. (Annex "H" of Petition)
In a Decision dated July 27, 1994, Labor Arbiter Santos made the following
determination:
2 — That with regards [sic] to the NLRC Case No. RAB III-
10-1817-90 pending with the NLRC, parties jointly and
mutually agreed that the issues thereof shall be
discussed by the parties and resolve[d] during the
negotiation of the CBA.
Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the NLRC in its
Resolution of 31 October 1995, 6 petitioners filed the instant special civil action
for certiorari raising the following issues:
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT DEPRIVED THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, SECURITY OF
TENURE, PROTECTION TO LABOR, JUST AND HUMANE CONDITIONS OF
WORK AND DUE PROCESS.
III
IV
In their Reply, petitioners averred that Mr. Navarro, a non-lawyer who filed the
notice to file a petition for review on their behalf, mistook which reglementary
period to apply. Instead of using the "reasonable time" criterion
for certiorari under Rule 65, he used the 15-day period for petitions for review
on certiorari under Rule 45. They hastened to add that such was a mere
technicality which should not bar their petition from being decided on the merits
in furtherance of substantial justice, especially considering that respondents
neither denied nor contradicted the facts and issues raised in the petition.
In its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) sided with petitioners. It pointed out that the Labor Arbiter, in
finding that petitioners abandoned their jobs, relied solely on the testimony of
Security Guard Rolando Cairo that petitioners refused to work on 21 January
1991, resulting in the spoilage of cheese curls ready for repacking. However, the
OSG argued, this refusal to report for work for a single day did not constitute
abandonment, which pertains to a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal to
resume employment, and not mere absence. In fact, the OSG stressed, two
days after allegedly abandoning their work, petitioners filed a complaint
for, inter alia, illegal lockout or illegal dismissal. Finally, the OSG questioned the
lack of explanation on the part of Labor Arbiter Santos as to why he abandoned
his original decision to reinstate petitioners.
In view of the stand of the OSG, we resolved to require the NLRC to file its own
Comment.
In its Comment, the NLRC invokes the general rule that factual findings of an
administrative agency bind a reviewing court and asserts that this case does not
fall under the exceptions. The NLRC further argues that grave abuse of discretion
may not be imputed to it, as it affirmed the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the Labor Arbiter only after carefully reviewing, weighing and
evaluating the evidence in support thereof, as well as the pertinent provisions of
law and jurisprudence.
In their Reply, petitioners claim that the decisions of the NLRC and the Labor
Arbiter were not supported by substantial evidence; that abandonment was not
proved; and that much credit was given to self-serving statements of Gonzalo
Kehyeng, owner of Empire Foods, as to payment of just wages.
On 7 July 1997, we gave due course to the petition and required the parties to
file their respective memoranda. However, only petitioners and private
respondents filed their memoranda, with the NLRC merely adopting its
Comment as its Memorandum.
Invocation of the general rule that factual findings of the NLRC bind this Court is
unavailing under the circumstances. Initially, we are unable to discern any
compelling reason justifying the Labor Arbiter's volte face from his 14 April 1992
decision reinstating petitioners to his diametrically opposed 27 July 1994
decision, when in both instances, he had before him substantially the same
evidence. Neither do we find the 29 March 1995 NLRC resolution to have
sufficiently discussed the facts so as to comply with the standard of substantial
evidence. For one thing, the NLRC confessed its reluctance to inquire into the
veracity of the Labor Arbiter's factual findings, staunchly declaring that it was
"not about to substitute [its] judgment on matters that are within the province of
the trier of facts." Yet, in the 21 July 1992 NLRC resolution, 8 it chastised the Labor
Arbiter for his errors both in judgment and procedure; for which reason it
remanded the records of the case to the Labor Arbiter for compliance with the
pronouncements therein.
What cannot escape from our attention is that the Labor Arbiter did not heed
the observations and pronouncements of the NLRC in its resolution of 21 July
1992, neither did he understand the purpose of the remand of the records to
him. In said resolution, the NLRC summarized the grounds for the appeal to be:
The Labor Arbiter, through his decision, noted that ". . . complainant
did not present any single witness while respondent presented four
(4) witnesses in the persons of Gonzalo Kehyeng, Orlando Cairo,
Evelyn Kehyeng and Elvira Bulagan . . ." (Records, p. 183), that ". . .
complainant before the National Labor Relations Commission must
prove with definiteness and clarity the offense charged. . . ."
(Record, p. 183; that ". . . complainant failed to specify under what
provision of the Labor Code particularly Art. 248 did respondents
violate so as to constitute unfair labor practice . . ." (Record, p. 183);
that "complainants failed to present any witness who may describe
in what manner respondents have committed unfair labor practice
. . ." (Record, p. 185); that ". . . complainant a [sic] LCP failed to
present anyone of the so called 99 complainants in order to testify
who committed the threats and intimidation . . ." (Record, p.185).
Toward this end, therefore, it is Our considered view the case should
be remanded to the Labor Arbiter of origin for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Apparently, the Labor Arbiter perceived that if not for petitioners, he would not
have fallen victim to this stinging rebuke at the hands of the NLRC. Thus does it
appear to us that the Labor Arbiter, in concluding in his 27 July 1994 Decision
that petitioners abandoned their work, was moved by, at worst, spite, or at best,
lackadaisically glossed over petitioner's evidence. On this score, we find the
following observations of the OSG most persuasive:
The failure to work for one day, which resulted in the spoilage of
cheese curls does not amount to abandonment of work. In fact two
(2) days after the reported abandonment of work or on January 23,
1991, petitioners filed a complaint for, among others, unfair labor
practice, illegal lockout and/or illegal dismissal. In several cases, this
Honorable Court held that "one could not possibly abandon his
work and shortly thereafter vigorously pursue his complaint for illegal
dismissal (De Ysasi III v. NLRC, 231 SCRA 173; Ranara v. NLRC, 212
SCRA 631; Dagupan Bus Co. v. NLRC, 191 SCRA 328; Atlas
Consolidated Mining and Development Corp. v. NLRC, 190 SCRA
505; Hua Bee Shirt Factory v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 586; Mabaylan v.
NLRC, 203 SCRA 570 and Flexo Manufacturing v. NLRC, 135 SCRA
145). In Atlas Consolidated, supra, this Honorable Court explicitly
stated:
In his second decision, Labor Arbiter Santos did not state why he
was abandoning his previous decision directing the reinstatement
of petitioner employees.
It may likewise be stressed that the burden of proving the existence of just cause
for dismissing an employee, such as abandonment, rests on the employer, 11 a
burden private respondents failed to discharge.
Petitioners are therefore entitled to reinstatement with full back wages pursuant
to Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715. Nevertheless,
the records disclose that taking into account the number of employees
involved, the length of time that has lapsed since their dismissal, and the
perceptible resentment and enmity between petitioners and private
respondents which necessarily strained their relationship, reinstatement would
be impractical and hardly promotive of the best interests of the parties. In lieu of
reinstatement then, separation pay at the rate of one month for every year of
service, with
a fraction of at least six (6) months of service considered as one (1) year, is in
order. 13
That being said, the amount of back wages to which each petitioner is entitled,
however, cannot be fully settled at this time. Petitioners, as piece-rate workers
having been paid by the piece, 14 there is need to determine the varying
degrees of production and days worked by each worker. Clearly, this issue is
best left to the National Labor Relations Commission.
As to the other benefits, namely, holiday pay, premium pay, 13th month pay
and service incentive leave which the labor arbiter failed to rule on but which
petitioners prayed for in their complaint, 15 we hold that petitioners are so
entitled to these benefits. Three (3) factors lead us to conclude that petitioners,
although piece-rate workers, were regular employees of private respondents.
First, as to the nature of petitioners' tasks, their job of repacking snack food was
necessary or desirable in the usual business of private respondents, who were
engaged in the manufacture and selling of such food products; second,
petitioners worked for private respondents throughout the year, their
employment not having been dependent on a specific project or season; and
third, the length of time 16 that petitioners worked for private respondents. Thus,
while petitioners' mode of compensation was on a "per piece basis," the status
and nature of their employment was that of regular employees.
The Rules Implementing the Labor Code exclude certain employees from
receiving benefits such as nighttime pay, holiday pay, service incentive
leave 17 and 13th month pay, 18 inter alia, "field personnel and other employees
whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer, including those
who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those
who are paid a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time
consumed in the performance thereof." Plainly, petitioners as piece-rate workers
do not fall within this group. As mentioned earlier, not only did petitioners labor
under the control of private respondents as their employer, likewise did
petitioners toil throughout the year with the fulfillment of their quota as supposed
basis for compensation. Further, in Section 8 (b), Rule IV, Book III which we quote
hereunder, piece workers are specifically mentioned as being entitled to
holiday pay.
2. EXEMPTED EMPLOYERS
The following employers are still not covered by P.D. No. 851:
The Revised Guidelines as well as the Rules and Regulations identify those
workers who fall under the piece-rate category as those who are paid a
standard amount for every piece or unit of work produced that is more or
less regularly replicated, without regard to the time spent in producing the
same. 20
As to overtime pay, the rules, however, are different. According to Sec. 2(e),
Rule I, Book III of the Implementing Rules, workers who are paid by results
including those who are paid on piece-work, takay, pakiao, or task basis, if their
output rates are in accordance with the standards prescribed under Sec. 8, Rule
VII, Book III, of these regulations, or where such rates have been fixed by the
Secretary of Labor in accordance with the aforesaid section, are not entitled to
receive overtime pay. Here, private respondents did not allege adherence to
the standards set forth in Sec. 8 nor with the rates prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor. As such, petitioners are beyond the ambit of exempted persons and are
therefore entitled to overtime pay. Once more, the National Labor Relations
Commission would be in a better position to determine the exact amounts
owed petitioners, if any.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution of the
National Labor Relations Commission of 29 March 1995 and the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter of 27 July 1994 in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-01-1964-91 are hereby SET
ASIDE, and another is hereby rendered:
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
4 Rollo, 138-148.
5 Supra note 1.
6 Rollo, 109-110.
7 Id., 21-22.
8 Annex "H" of Petition, Id, 85-90. Per Commissioner Rayala, R.I., with
Commissioners Javier, L,. and Bernardo, I., concurring.
9 Rollo, 86-90.
10 Rollo, 150-153.
11 Lim v. NLRC, 259 SCRA 485, 497 [1996]; Metro Transit Organization,
Inc., 263 SCRA 3163, 321 [1996]; De la Cruz v. NLRC, 268 SCRA 458,
468 [1997].
15 Rollo, 51.
16 RJL Mariner Fishing Corp. v. NLRC, 127 SCRA 454, 462 [1984].
17 Section 1 (e), Rule II, Sec. 1(e) Rule IV and Sec. 1(d), Rule V of
Book II.
20 This distinction was also used in Sec. 3(e) Rules and Regulations
Implementing P.D. 851.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Is failure to attend hearings before the labor arbiter a waiver of the right to
present evidence? Are moral damages included in the computation of
"monetary award" for purposes of determining the amount of the appeal
bond? Is there a limit to the amount of service incentive leave pay and
backwages that may be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee?
The Case
These are the main questions raised in this petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 11, 1992 Decision2 of
Respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),3 the dispositive
portion of which reads:4
This petition also challenges the NLRC's May 29, 1992 Resolution denying
the motion for reconsideration.
The decision5 vacated by the NLRC and penned by Labor Arbiter Gabino
A. Velasquez, Jr. disposed as follows:6
1. LEIDEN FERNANDEZ:
TOTAL P
46,522.50
2. GLORIA ADRIANO:
TOTAL P
79,866.25
3. EMELIA NEGAPATAN:
TOTAL P
85,272.00
4. JESUS P. TOMONGHA:
TOTAL P
106,973.25
5. ELEONOR QUIÑANOLA:
TOTAL P
64,642.00
6. ASTERIA CAMPO:
TOTAL P
62,160.25
7. FLORIDA VILLACERAN:
a) Separation Pay for 17 years P
25,160.00
TOTAL P
70,357.25
8. FLORIDA TALLEDO:
TOTAL P
74,607.00
9. BRENDA GADIANO:
TOTAL P
63,313.25
TOTAL P
62,330.00
TOTAL P
36,138.50
The Facts
The factual milieu of this case is recited by the solicitor general in his
Comment dated December 21, 1992 as follows:7
REMARKS
9. At the hearing scheduled on July 12, 1991, Atty. Seno and Lhuillier
failed to appear. Thus, counsel for petitioners submitted the instant
case for resolution (Rec., p.181).
11. On July 30, 1991, counsel for petitioners filed an Urgent Motion
For Early Decision (Rec., pp. 191-193).
15. On October 14, 1991, Atty. Seno filed a Motion Reiterating The
Request For Submission Of Additional Affidavits therein alleging that
Lhuillier's previous motion to present additional affidavits had not
been acted upon; and that he had not received an order
considering the instant case submitted for resolution. With the
motion, Lhuillier submitted the affidavits of additional witnesses,
praying that said supplemental affidavits be admitted and
presentation of additional evidence be allowed (Rec., pp. 207-209).
The established fact is that July 8 and 12, 1991 were the scheduled
dates for the cross-examination of Marilyn Lim, last witness for the
complainants and the start of respondents' presentation of
evidence. It is also not disputed that respondent and counsel failed
to appear at the July 8 hearing. A scrutiny of the minutes of the July
8, 1991 hearing would however reveal that date was alloted [sic]
purposely for the cross-examination of Marilyn Lim and that
respondents' presentation of evidence would start on July 12,
1991. (page 176, records) Technically, the Labor Arbiter was correct
in ruling that respondent had waived her right to cross-examine
complainant Marilyn Lim when she failed to appear on July 8,
1991. But definitely, it was error for him to consider the case
submitted for decision when respondent failed to appear on July
12, 1991. The above-cited rules are clear and explicit. It takes two
successive and unjustified non-appearance on the part of
respondent before he or she can be considered to have waived
his/her right to present evidence and thereafter to consider the
case submitted for decision on the basis of the evidence thus far
presented. Respondent's absence on July 12, 1991 was but her first
since, as pointed out, it was on that day that she was supposed to
start presenting her evidence. What the Labor Arbiter should have
done was to set another date for the reception of respondent's
evidence. If she still failed to appear, his reliance on Sec. 11 (c),
Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC would have been
justified and this Commission would not hesitate to uphold him on
that respect. As it is, the questioned ruling was, indeed, premature
to say the least. While concern for the less privileged workers and
speediin [sic] the disposition of labor cases are highly
commendable, those considerations should not run roughshod over
well-established principles of due process.
It may be argued that the evidence sought to be introduced by
respondent are contained in the additional affidavits which now
form part of the records, hence this Commission can now decide
this appeal on the merits. It is with more reason that this case should
be remanded not only to allow respondent to formally present her
evidence, but also to allow complainants to cross-examine and
confront their accusers. (Emphasis supplied.)
Not satisfied, petitioners filed the present petition before us under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court.9
The Issues
Put differently but more plainly, the issues in this case are as follows:
1. Did the NLRC acquire jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding the
alleged insufficiency of the appeal bond?
The petition is meritorious. We hold that the private respondents were not
denied due process of law by the labor arbiter; and that nine of the
petitioners were illegally dismissed, but that Petitioners Lim and Canonigo
were not.
There is no conflict between the two provisions. Article 223 lays down the
requirement that an appeal bond should be filed. The implementing rule,
on the other hand, explains how the appeal bond shall be computed. The
rule explicitly excludes moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees
from the computation of the appeal bond. This exclusion has been
recognized by the Court in a number of cases. Hence, in Erectors
vs. NLRC,12 the Court nullified an NLRC order requiring the posting of an
appeal bond which, among others, "even included in the computation
the award of P400,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages." Indeed, the
said implementing rule is a contemporaneous construction of Article 223
by the NLRC pursuant to the mandate of the Labor Code; hence, it is
accorded great respect by this Court.13
In line with the desired objective of our labor laws to resolve controversies
on their merits, the Court has held that the filing of a bond in appeals
involving monetary awards should be given liberal construction.14 The rule
requiring the employer to post a cash or surety bond to perfect his appeal
assures the workers that they will receive the money judgment awarded
to them upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal. It also discourages
employers from using an appeal to delay or even evade their obligation
to satisfy the just and lawful claims of their employees.15
The NLRC ruled that private respondents were denied due process
because the labor arbiter deemed the case submitted for resolution when
they failed to attend the hearings on July 8 and 12, 1991. Under the NLRC
Rules of Procedure, a case may be deemed submitted for decision on the
basis of the evidence thus far adduced in the event respondent incurs
two successive absences "during his turn to present evidence." While the
hearing on July 12, 1991 was for the presentation of herein private
respondents' evidence, the NLRC found that the hearing on July 8, 1991
was scheduled for the cross-examination of petitioners' witness. Since the
absences were not made during respondents' "turn to present evidence,"
public respondent remanded the case to the labor arbiter for "further
proceedings."
Petitioners dispute the NLRC ruling, contending that the parties in this case
were able to submit their respective position papers together with
supporting affidavits and other documents. They stress that private
respondents' failure to attend the hearings on July 8 and 12, 1991, without
any justification or motion for postponement, warranted the submission of
the case for decision pursuant to Section 11, Rule V of the 1990 New Rules
of Procedure of the NLRC. They insist that the hearing on July 8, 1991 was
scheduled to afford private respondents not only an opportunity "to cross-
examine petitioner's last witness, Marilyn Lim, [but also] to start the
presentation of [their] evidence . . ."16
On the other hand, private respondents argue that the labor arbiter erred
in considering the absence of their counsel during the hearings scheduled
on July 8 and July 12, 1991 as waiver not only of the right to cross-examine
but of the right to present evidence. They further contend that the labor
arbiter released his decision notwithstanding the pendency of three
unresolved motions.17 These circumstances clearly show that they were
not afforded due process of law.18
To make a clear ruling, we again cite Rule V, Section 11 of the 1990 Rules
of Procedure of Respondent NLRC, which provides:
Private respondents were able to file their respective position papers and
the documents in support thereof, and all these were duly considered by
the labor arbiter.20 Indeed, the requirements of due process are satisfied
where the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers.21 In
any event, Respondent NLRC and the labor arbiter are authorized under
the Labor Code to decide a case on the basis of the position papers and
documents submitted.22 The holding of an adversarial trial depends on the
discretion of the labor arbiter, and the parties cannot demand it as a
matter of right. In other words, the filing of position papers and supporting
documents fulfilled the requirements of due process.23 Therefore, there
was no denial of this right because private respondents were given the
opportunity to present their side.24
Moreover, it should be noted that private respondents did not dispute the
order of the labor arbiter submitting the case for decision immediately
after its issuance. Likewise, they failed to present additional evidence on
the date they themselves specified. It was only on August 6, 1991 that
private respondents' counsel, in his Comments to the Offer of
Exhibits25 with counter-manifestation, explained his failure to appear at the
hearing on July 8, 1991. His explanation, quoted below, is not
compelling.26
Three days later on August 9, 1991, private respondents moved that they
be given a "period of ten days from August 9, 1991" — or until August 19,
1991— within which to submit additional affidavits, "after which, the cases
will be deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of complainants'
evidence and respondents' position paper and the additional
affidavits."27 Counsel, however, failed to submit the supposed evidence
on said date. On October 14, 1991, private respondents filed a Motion
Reiterating the Request for Submission of Additional Affidavits.28 Again,
private respondents did not submit the said documents.
We cannot remand the instant case to the labor arbiter for further
proceedings. Respondent NLRC, on the basis of the evidence on record,
could have resolved the dispute. To remand it to the labor arbiter is to
delay needlessly the disposition of this case, which has been pending
since July 23, 1990. It becomes our duty under the circumstances to
determine the validity of the allegations of the parties. Remanding the
case to the labor arbiter will just frustrate speedy justice and, in any event,
would be a futile exercise, as in all probability the case would end up with
this Court. We shall thus rule on the substantial claims of the parties.
On the other hand, petitioners maintain that on July 19, 1990, Private
Respondent Marguerite Lhuillier, the pawnshop owner, told them not to
report for work because their employment had been terminated. Thus,
they did not report for work the following day, July 20, 1990. On July 23,
1990, they filed their respective complaints before the Regional Arbitration
Board of Respondent NLRC.
The foregoing holding cannot apply to Petitioners Marilyn Lim and Joseph
Canonigo, however.
Lim claims that Private Respondent Lhuillier forced her to resign, but at the
same time assured her of separation pay.33 On February 5, 1990, prior to
Lim's letter of resignation dated February 24, 1990,34 her lawyer proposed
the following to Private Respondent Lhuillier:35
Petitioner Lim's testimony36 that she has never been informed of any
wrongdoing until her termination is belied by her assertions in the
aforequoted letter. Her admission of the offense charged shows that she
was not coerced to resign. Besides, the fact that her complaint for illegal
dismissal was filed long after her resignation on February 24, 1990 suggests
that it was a mere afterthought.
Art. 291. Money Claims. — All money claims arising from employer-
employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall
be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action
accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred.
Petitioners, citing Roche Philippines et al. vs. NLRC et al.,44 further contend
that the award of damages in the case at bar should be increased, for
"there are eleven (11) complainants/petitioners whose long years of
employment was illegally, oppressively and wantonly terminated by the
private
respondent."45
The clear legislative intent of the amendment in Rep. Act No. 6715 is
to give more benefits to workers than was previously given them
under the Mercury Drug rule or the "deduction of earnings
elsewhere" rule. Thus, a closer adherence to the legislative policy
behind Rep. Act No. 6715 points to "full backwages" as meaning
exactly that, i.e., without deducting from backwages the earnings
derived elsewhere by the concerned employee during the period
of his illegal dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
9 The case was deemed submitted for resolution upon the posting
of private respondent's memorandum on October 18, 1996. (Rollo,
p. 380.)
14 Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 320, 331
November 19, 1996; Star Angel Handicraft vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 236 SCRA 580, September 20, 1994;
Blancaflor vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 218 SCRA 366,
February 2, 1993; Rada vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 205
SCRA 69, January 9, 1992; Erectors, Inc. vs. NLRC, 202 SCRA 597,
October 10, 1991; YBL (Your Bus Line) vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 190 SCRA 160, September 28, 1990.
19 Labor arbiter's decision, p. 25; rollo, p. 103. The labor arbiter held
that "[o]n July 8, 1991 and July 12, 1991, the scheduled dates for the
respondent to cross-examine complainant, Marilyn Lim and for the
respondent to present her evidence, respectively, respondent and
her counsel without giving reason nor filed [sic] any motion to
postpone failed to appear on the said scheduled dates." (Emphasis
supplied). In effect, the labor arbiter belied petitioner's contention
that the hearing on July 8, 1991 was for the cross-examination of the
petitioner's witness and for the reception of private respondents'
evidence.
21 Odin Security Agency vs. De La Serna, et al., 182 SCRA 472, 479,
February 21, 1990; Pacific Timber Export Corp. vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA
860, July 30, 1993.
22 Cagampan et al. v. NLRC et al., 195 SCRA 533, 539, March 22,
1991; Salonga vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA
111, 115, February 23, 1996 citing Lawrence vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 205 SCRA 737, 750, February 4, 1992. See
also Pacific Timber Export Corp. vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 860, 862, July 30,
1993; Commando Security Agency vs. NLRC, 211 SCRA 645, 649,
July 20, 1992; Robusta Agro Marine Products, Inc. vs. Gorombalem,
175 SCRA 93, 98, July 5, 1989.
23 Yap vs. Inciong, 186 SCRA 664, June 21, 1990; B. Sta. Rita &
Company, Inc. vs. Arroyo and NLRC, 168 SCRA 581, December 20,
1988.
24 Divine Word High School vs. NLRC, 143 SCRA 346, August 6, 1986;
Municipality of Daet vs. Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., 138 SCRA 265,
August 28, 1985.
33 NLRC Records, pp. 312-313; TSN, February 27, 1991, pp. 19-20.
37 NLRC Records, pp. 326-327; TSN, February 27, 1991, pp. 33-34.
42 G.R. No. 111651, pp. 8-9, November 28, 1996, per Padilla, J.
46 Cf. Suario vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 176 SCRA 688, 696,
August 25, 1989 citing Primero vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 156
SCRA 435, December 14, 1987.
48 Magnolia Dairy Products Corp. vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA 483, 491,
January 29, 1996.
52 Citytrust Banking Corporation vs. NLRC, 258 SCRA 621, 630, July
11, 1996 citing Article 279 of the Labor Code as amended by RA
6715; Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 245 SCRA 627, July 6, 1995; Torillo vs.
Leogardo, 197 SCRA 471, May 27, 1991; Indophil Acrylic Mfg. Corp.
vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 723, September 27, 1993; Quinoñes vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 246 SCRA 294, 298, July 14, 1995;
Molave Tours Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
250 SCRA 325, 329, November 24, 1995; Polymedic General Hospital
vs. NLRC, 134 SCRA 420, January 31, 1985; Egyptair vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 148 SCRA 125, February 27, 1987.
55 Ibid., p. 8.
SECOND DIVISION
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
The Case
Before us are these two consolidated petitions for review under Rule 45
separately interposed by Ricardo G. Paloma and Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) to
nullify and set aside the Amended Decision1 dated May 31, 2001 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 56429, as effectively reiterated in its
Resolution2 of January 14, 2003.
The Facts
Paloma worked with PAL from September 1957, rising from the ranks to retire,
after 35 years of continuous service, as senior vice president for finance. In
March 1992, or some nine (9) months before Paloma retired on November 30,
1992, PAL was privatized.
By way of post-employment benefits, PAL paid Paloma the total amount of PhP
5,163,325.64 which represented his separation/retirement gratuity and accrued
vacation leave pay. For the benefits thus received, Paloma signed a document
denominated Release and Quitclaim3 but inscribed the following reservation
therein: "Without prejudice to my claim for further leave benefits embodied in
my aide memoire transmitted to Mr. Roberto Anonas covered by my 27 Nov.
1992 letter x x x."
The leave benefits Paloma claimed being entitled to refer to his 450-day
accrued sick leave credits which PAL allegedly only paid the equivalent of 18
days. He anchored his entitlement on Executive Order No. (EO) 10774 dated
January 9, 1986, and his having accumulated a certain number of days of sick
leave credits, as acknowledged in a letter of Alvia R. Leaño, then an
administrative assistant in PAL. Leaño’s letter dated November 12, 1992
pertinently reads:
At your request, we are pleased to confirm herewith the balance of your sick
leave credits as they appear in our records: 230 days.
Had there been no ceiling as mandated by Company policy, your sick leave
credits would have totaled 450 days to date.5
Answering Paloma’s written demands for conversion to cash of his accrued sick
leave credits, PAL asserted having paid all of Paloma’s commutable sick leave
credits due him pursuant to company policy made applicable to PAL officers
starting 1990.
The company leave policy adverted to grants PAL’s regular ground personnel a
graduated sick leave benefits, those having rendered at least 25 years of
service being entitled to 20 days of sick leave for every year of service. An
employee, under the policy, may accumulate sick leaves with pay up to 230
days. Subject to defined qualifications, sick leave credits in excess of 230 days
shall be commutable to cash at the employee’s option and shall be paid in
lump sum on or before May 31st of the following year they were earned.6 Per
PAL’s records, Paloma appears to have, for the period from 1990 to 1992,
commuted 58 days of his sick leave credits, broken down as follows: 20 days
each in 1990 and 1991 and 18 days in 1992.
Subsequently, Paloma filed before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) a Complaint7 for Commutation of Accrued Sick
Leaves Totaling 392 days. In the complaint, docketed as NLRC-NCR-Case No.
00-08-05792-94, Paloma alleged having accrued sick leave credits of 450 days
commutable upon his retirement pursuant to EO 1077 which allows retiring
government employees to commute, without limit, all his accrued vacation and
sick leave credits. And of the 450-day credit, Paloma added, he had commuted
only 58 days, leaving him a balance of 392 days of accrued sick leave credits
for commutation.
Issues having been joined with the filing by the parties of their respective position
papers,8 the labor arbiter rendered on June 30, 1995 a Decision9 dispositively
reading:
The labor arbiter held that PAL is not covered by the civil service system and,
accordingly, its employees, like Paloma, cannot avail themselves of the
beneficent provision of EO 1077. This executive issuance, per the labor arbiter’s
decision, applies only to government officers and employees covered by the
civil service, exclusive of the members of the judiciary whose leave and
retirement system is covered by a special law.
However, the labor arbiter ruled that Paloma is entitled to a commutation of his
alternative claim for 202 accrued sick leave credits less 40 days for 1990 and
1991. Thus, the grant of commutation for 162 accrued leave credits.
Both parties appealed10 the decision of the labor arbiter to the NLRC.
On November 26, 1997, the First Division of the NLRC rendered a Decision
affirming that of the labor arbiter, thus:
SO ORDERED.11
Both parties moved for reconsideration. In its Resolution of November 10, 1999,
the NLRC, finding Paloma to have, upon his retirement, commutable
accumulated sick leave credits of 230 days, modified its earlier decision,
disposing as follows:
In view of all the foregoing, our decision dated November 26, 1997, be modified
by increasing the sick leave benefits of complainant to be commuted to cash
from 162 days to 230 days.
SO ORDERED.12
From the above modificatory resolution of the NLRC, PAL went to the CA on a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the recourse docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
56429.
Ruling of the CA in its April 28, 2000 Decision
By a Decision dated April 28, 2000, the CA found for PAL, thus:
SO ORDERED.13
On May 31, 2001, the CA issued the assailed Amended Decision reversing its
April 28, 2000 Decision. The fallo of the Amended Decision reads:
SO ORDERED.15
Justifying its amendatory action, the CA stated that EO 1077 applies to PAL and
necessarily to Paloma on the following rationale: Section 2(1) of Article IX(B) of
the 1987 Constitution applies prospectively and, thus, the expressed limitation
therein on the applicability of the civil service law only to government-owned
and controlled corporations (GOCCs) with original charters does not preclude
the applicability of EO 1077 to PAL and its then employees. This conclusion, the
CA added, becomes all the more pressing considering that PAL, at the time of
the issuance of EO 1077, was still a GOCC and that Paloma had already 29
years of service at that time. The appellate court also stated that since PAL had
then no existing retirement program, the provisions of EO 1077 shall serve as a
retirement program for Paloma who had meanwhile acquired vested rights
under the EO pursuant to Arts. 10016 and 28717 of the Labor Code.
Paloma immediately appealed the CA’s Amended Decision via a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, docketed as G.R. No. 148415. On the other
hand, PAL first sought reconsideration of the Amended Decision, coming to us
after the CA, per its January 14, 2003 Resolution, denied the desired
reconsideration. In net effect then, PAL’s Petition for Review on Certiorari,
docketed as G.R. No. 156764, assails both the Amended Decision and Resolution
of the CA.
The Issues
WHETHER OR NOT THE [CA], IN HOLDING THAT E.O. NO. 1077 IS APPLICABLE TO
PETITIONER AND YET APPLYING COMPANY POLICY BY AWARDING THE CASH
EQUIVALENT OF ONLY 162 DAYS SICK LEAVE CREDITS INSTEAD OF THE 450 DAYS
SICK LEAVE CREDITS PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO UNDER E.O. NO. 1077, DECIDED A
QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO LAW AND APPLICABLE
JURISPRUDENCE.18
In G.R. No. 156764, PAL raises the following issues for our consideration:
The issues submitted boil down to the question of whether or not EO 1077, before
PAL’s privatization, applies to its employees, and corollarily, whether or not
Paloma is entitled to a commutation of his accrued sick leave credits.
Subsumed to the main issue because EO 1077 applies only to government
employees subject to civil service law is the question of whether or not PAL—
which, as early as 1960 until its privatization, had been considered as a
government-controlled corporation—is covered by and subject to the limitations
peculiar under the civil service system.
WHEREAS, under existing law and civil service regulations, the number of days of
vacation and sick leaves creditable to a government officer or employee is
limited to 300 days;
WHEREAS, by special law, members of the judiciary are not subject to such
restriction;
xxxx
Section 1. Any officer [or] employee of the government who retires or voluntary
resigns or is separated from the service through no fault of his own and whose
leave benefits are not covered by special law, shall be entitled to the
commutation of all the accumulated vacation and/or sick leaves to his credit,
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, without limitation as to the
number of days of vacation and sick leaves that he may accumulate.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Paloma maintains that he comes within the coverage of EO 1077, the same
having been issued in 1986, before he severed official relations with PAL, and at
a time when the applicable constitutional provision on the coverage of the civil
service made no distinction between GOCCs with original charters and those
without, like PAL which was incorporated under the Corporation Code. Implicit
in Paloma’s contention is the submission that he earned the bulk of his sick leave
credits under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution when PAL, being then a
government-controlled corporation, was under civil service coverage.
The Court can allow that PAL, during the period material, was a government-
controlled corporation in the sense that the GSIS owned a controlling interest
over its stocks. One stubborn fact, however, remains: Through the years, PAL
functioned as a private corporation and managed as such for profit. Their
personnel were never considered government employees. It may perhaps not
be amiss for the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that the civil service law
and rules and regulations have not actually been made to apply to PAL and its
employees. Of governing application to them was the Labor Code. Consider:
(a) Even during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution but prior to the
promulgation on January 17, 1985 of the decision in No. L-64313 entitled
National Housing Corporation v. Juco,24 the Court no less recognized the
applicability of the Labor Code to, and the authority of the NLRC to exercise
jurisdiction over, disputes involving discipline, personnel movements, and
dismissal in GOCCs, among them PAL;25 (b) Company policy and collective
bargaining agreements (CBAs), instead of the civil service law and rules, govern
the terms and conditions of employment in PAL. In fact, Ople rhetorically asked
how PAL can be covered by the civil service law when, at one time, there were
three (3) CBAs in PAL, one for the ground crew, one for the flight attendants,
and one for the pilots;26 and (c) When public sector unionism was just an
abstract concept, labor unions in PAL with the right to engage in strike and other
concerted activities were already active.27
Not to be overlooked of course is the 1964 case of Phil. Air Lines Employees’
Assn., wherein the Court stated that "the Civil Service Law has not been actually
applied to PAL."28
Paloma not entitled to the benefits granted in EO 1077; existing company policy
on the matter applies
What governs Paloma’s entitlement to sick leave benefits and the computation
and commutation of creditable benefits is not EO 1077, as the labor arbiter and
originally the NLRC correctly held, but PAL’s company policy on the matter
which, as found below, took effect in 1990. The text of the policy is reproduced
in the CA’s April 28, 2000 Decision and sets out the following pertinent rules:
POLICY
Regular employees shall be entitled to a yearly period of sick leave with pay, the
exact number of days to be determined on the basis of the employee’s
category and length of service in the company.
RULES
xxxx
xxxx
4. An employee may accumulate sick leave with pay up to Two Hundred Thirty
(230) days;
An employee who has accumulated seventy-five (75) days sick leave credit at
the end of each year may, at his option, commute seventy-five percent (75%) of
his current sick leave entitlement to cash and the other twenty-five percent
(25%) to be added to his accrued sick leave credits up to two hundred thirty
(230) calendar days.
Sick leave credits in excess of two hundred thirty (230) days shall be
commutable to cash at the employee’s option, and shall be paid in lump sum
on or before May 31st of the following year it was earned.31 (Emphasis ours.)
As may be gathered from the records, accrued sick leave credits in excess of
230 days were not, if earned before 1990 when the above policy took effect,
commutable to cash; they were simply forfeited. Those earned after 1990, but
still subject to the 230-day threshold rule, were commutable to cash to the
extent of 75% of the employee’s current entitlement, and payable on or before
May 31st of the following year, necessarily implying that the privilege to
commute is time-bound.
It appears that Paloma had, as of 1990, more than 230 days of accrued sick
leave credits. Following company policy, Paloma was deemed to have forfeited
the monetary value of his leave credits in excess of the 230-day ceiling. Now,
then, it is undisputed that he earned additional accrued sick leave credits of 20
days in 1990 and 1991 and 18 days in 1992, which he duly commuted pursuant
to company policy and received with the corresponding cash value. Therefore,
PAL is correct in contending that Paloma had received whatever was due on
the commutation of his accrued sick leave credits in excess of the 230 days limit,
specifically the 58 days commutation for 1990, 1991, and 1992.
The query that comes next is how the 230 days accrued sick leave credits
Paloma undoubtedly had when he retired are to be treated. Is this otherwise
earned credits commutable to cash? These should be answered in the
negative.
The labor arbiter granted 162 days commutation, while the NLRC allowed the
commutation of the maximum 230 days. The CA, while seemingly affirming the
NLRC’s grant of 230 days commutation, actually decreed a 162-day
commutation. We cannot sustain any of the dispositions thus reached for lack of
legal basis, for PAL’s company policy upon which either disposition was
predicated did not provide for a commutation of the first 230 days accrued sick
leave credits employees may have upon their retirement. Hence, the NLRC and
the CA, by their act of allowing commutation to cash, erred as they virtually
read in the policy something not written or intended therein. Indeed, no law
provides for commutation of unused or accrued sick leave credits in the private
sector. Commutation is allowed by way of voluntary endowment by an
employer through a company policy or by a CBA. None of such medium
presently obtains and it would be incongruous if the Court fills up the vacuum.
In our view, the only meaning and import of said rule and regulation is that if an
employee does not choose to enjoy his yearly sick leave of thirty days, he may
accumulate such sick leave up to a maximum of six months and enjoy this six
months sick leave at the end of the sixth year but may not commute it to
cash.321avvphi1
In fine, absent any provision in the applicable company policy authorizing the
commutation of the 230 days accrued sick leave credits existing upon
retirement, Paloma may not, as a matter of enforceable right, insist on the
commutation of his sick leave credits to cash.
As PAL’s senior vice-president for finance upon his retirement, Paloma knew or at
least ought to have known the company policy on accrued sick leave credits
and how it was being implemented. Had he acted on that knowledge in utmost
good faith, these proceedings would have not come to pass.
WHEREFORE, the petition under G.R. No. 148415 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit, while the petition under G.R. No. 156764 is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. The
Amended Decision dated May 31, 2001 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 56429 and
its Resolution of January 14, 2003 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and the
CA Decision dated April 28, 2000 is accordingly REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 148415), pp. 55-65. Penned by Associate Justice Renato
C. Dacudao (now retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Bennie
A. Adefuin-de la Cruz and Eliezer R. de los Santos.
3 Id. at 83.
8 Rollo (G.R. No. 156764), pp. 61-73, Position Paper for Complainant, dated
September 28, 1994; id. at 74-82, Position Paper for Respondent, dated
October 24, 1994.
10 Id. at 102-115, PAL’s Appeal to NLRC, dated August 15, 1995; id. at 123-
137, Paloma’s Memorandum on Appeal, dated August 16, 1995.
15 Id. at 64.
16 Art. 100. PROHIBITION AGAINST ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF
BENEFITS. Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way
diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the
time of promulgation of this Code.
xxxx
28 Supra at 397.
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For resolution is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated
August 9, 1999 and Resolution2 dated December 29, 1999 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51838, "Texon Manufacturing and/or Betty Chua vs.
Grace and Marilyn Millena."
Sometime in February 1990 and May 1990, Marilyn and Grace Millena,
respondents, were employed by Texon Manufacturing, petitioner company.
On January 10, 1996, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order3 denying the motion to
dismiss.
On February 27, 1997, the NLRC promulgated an Order4 dismissing the appeal
and affirming the Arbiter’s Order.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC.
Consequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
On August 9, 1999, the Appellate Court rendered a Decision affirming the NLRC
Order. In sustaining the denial by the NLRC of petitioners’ motion to dismiss, the
Court of Appeals held:
"Admittedly, the three year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the
Labor Code, is supposedly counted from the time the cause of action
accrued.
xxx
"We repeat, Grace and Marilyn were employed in May 1990 and February
1990, respectively, but were terminated in the summer of 1995 and
September 8, 1995.
"We rule, the three-year period did not yet prescribe, considering that
Grace filed her complaint on August 21, 1995, while Marilyn filed her
complaint in September 1995.
xxx
xxx
"SO ORDERED."
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the Court of
Appeals in a Resolution dated December 29, 1999.
Petitioners, in the instant petition for review on certiorari, contend (1) that
prescription has extinguished respondents’ money claims considering that under
Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended, the three-year prescriptive period is
counted from the time their causes of action accrued; and (2) that their appeal
to the NLRC should have been sustained by the Court of Appeals, being in
accordance with Article 223 of the same Code.
The pivotal question is when respondents’ causes of action accrued for this will
determine the reckoning date of the prescriptive period.
The applicable law is Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended, which
provides:
"Article 291. Money claims. – All money claims arising from employer-
employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be
filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued,
otherwise they shall be forever barred."
"Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
Respondent’s complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for the grant of money
claims and benefits is one covered by Article 1146 of the Civil Code, quoted
earlier, that must be filed with the Labor Arbiter within four (4) years.
Respondent’s complaint was filed on September 11, 1995 or only three (3)
days after petitioners terminated her services on September 8, 1995. Clearly, her
suit was filed on time.
We thus hold that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that both respondents’
actions have not yet prescribed.
Petitioners also contend that the NLRC should not have dismissed their appeal
from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, citing Article 223 of the Labor Code, as
amended, which provides:
"Article 223. Appeal. – Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are
final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both
parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions,
awards, or orders. x x x.
In dismissing petitioners’ appeal, the NLRC relied on the provisions of Section 15,
Rule V (now Section 3, Rule V) of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended by
NLRC Resolution No. 01-02, Series of 2002, quoted as follows:
The Solicitor General, in his comment, maintains that the above Rule does not
contravene Article 223 of the Labor Code. Hence, the NLRC’s reliance on the
same Rule is in order. The Solicitor General explains:
"The orders contemplated in Article 223 of the Labor Code are decisions,
awards or orders which are final in character and not merely interlocutory
orders, as in the case of an order denying a motion to dismiss.
xxx
In the instant case, the order of the Labor Arbiter denying petitioners’
motion to dismiss was not yet final as there was something else to be
done, namely the filing of the answer and the subsequent proceedings
wherein the respective parties would ventilate their respective sides."
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
5 G.R. No. 57642, March 16, 1999, 171 SCRA 250, cited in Serrano vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 139420, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 223, 230.
6 G.R. No. L-70615, October 28, 1986, 145 SCRA 268, 279, cited in Baliwag
Transit, Inc. vs. Ople, supra at 257.