jurisprudence silp

8/18/2019 Jurisprudence SILP

1/27

G.R. No. 105892 January 28, 1998

LEIDEN FERNANDEZ, BRENDA GADIANO, GLORIA ADRIANO, EMELIA NEGAPATAN, JE!TOMONG"A, ELEONOR #!I$ANOLA, ATERIA %AMPO, FLORIDA &ILLA%ERAN, FLORIDATALLEDO, MARIL'N LIM an( JOEP" %ANONIGO, petitioners,

vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATION %OMMIION, FO!RT" DI&IION)MARG!ERITE 1 L"!ILLIER AND*OR AGEN%IA %EB!ANA+". L"!ILLIER, respondents.

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 ofdetermining the amount of the appeal bond? Is there a limit to the amount of serviceincentive 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 ule ! of the ulesof #ourt assailing the $arch %%, %&&' (ecision 2 of espondent )ational *abor elations#ommission +)*#, the dispositive portion of which reads- -

/00120, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby declared3A#AT0( and the entire records of these cases are hereby ordered remanded to theegional Arbitration 4ranch 3II for further proceedings.

This petition also challenges the )*#5s $ay '&, %&&' esolution denying the motion forreconsideration.

The decision 5 vacated by the )*# and penned by *abor Arbiter 6abino A. 3elasque7, 8r.disposed as follows-

/00120, 9udgment is hereby rendered in favor of the complainants and against therespondent. The respondent is hereby ordered-

%. To reinstate the complainants to their respective position :sic ; at the Agencia#ebuana with full backwages without qualification< if reinstatement is not feasible, for one reason or another, to pay to the complainants their respective separation pay,service incentive leave pay with full backwages without qualification computedhereunder as follows-

%. *0I(0) 10)A)(0=-


2/27

a >eparation ay for ! years @,!B.B

B

b >ervice Incentive *eave +! yrs. C,C''.B

c 4ackwages for one year only C,!B.BB

T2T A*

!,''.

B

'. 6*2IA A(IA)2-

a >eparation ay for %D years '@,!B.

BB

b >ervice Incentive *eave +%D yrs. %B,&@!.'

c 4ackwages for one year only B,C'B.BB

T2T A*

D&,@!!.

'

C. 0$0*IA )06AATA)-


3/27

a >eparation ay for ' years C,D!B.BB

b >ervice Incentive *eave +' yrs. %C,D'.BB

c 4ackwages for one year only C,D!B.BB

T2T A*

@,'D'.

BB

. 80>E> . T2$2)6/A-

a >eparation ay for CC years B,!.B

B

b >ervice Incentive *eave %&,D@.'

c 4ackwages for one year only C!,@B.BB

T2T A*

%B!,&DC.


4/27

'

. 0*02)2 FEIGA)2*A-

a >eparation ay for % years 'B,@!B.

BB

b >ervice Incentive *eave @,B''.BB

c 4ackwages for one year only C,D!B.BB

T2T A*

!,!'.

BB

!. A>T0IA #A$2-

a >eparation ay for %C years %&,'B.

BB

b >ervice Incentive *eave +%C yrs. D,BB.B

B

c 4ackwages for one year only C,'B.BB


5/27

T2T A*

!',%!B.

'

D. 1*2I(A 3I**A#0A)-

a >eparation ay for %D years ',%!B.

BB

b >ervice Incentive *eave +%D yrs. &,!DD.'

c 4ackwages for one year only C,'B.BB

T2T A*

DB,CD.

'

@. 1*2I(A TA**0(2-

a >eparation ay for %@ years 'D,B.

BB

b >ervice Incentive *eave +%@ yrs. %B,D.BB

c 4ackwages for one year only C!,!BB.


6/27

BB

T2T A* D,!BD.BB

&. 40)(A 6A(IA)2-

a >eparation ay for %C years %&,&D.

B

b >ervice Incentive *eave +%C yrs. D,C!.D

c 4ackwages for one year only C!,%@B.BB

T2T A*

!C,C%C.

'

%B. $AI*H) *I$-

a >eparation ay for D years

%',&B.BB

b >ervice Incentive *eave +D yrs. ,&@B.B


7/27

c 4ackwages for one year only ,BB.BB

T2T A*

!',CCB.

BB

%%. 82>0/ #A)2)I62-

a >eparation ay for ' years ',DBB.B

B

b >ervice Incentive *eave +' yrs. %,[email protected]

c 4ackwages for one year only C',BB.BB

T2T A*

C!,%C@.

B

' To pay to all complainants the amount of %BB,BBB.BB for moral damages and theamount of another %BB,BBB.BB for eemplary damages, plus the amount of&@,B%@.' as attorney5s fees representing %BJ of the total award and the amount of CB,BBB.BB for litigation epenses.

The totality of the award amounting to %,BD@,'BB. must be deposited with this2ffice ten +%B days from receipt of this decision for further disposition. /owever, thepayment of backwages will be computed as of the actual date of payment provided itwill not eceed a period of three years.

The Facts


8/27

The factual milieu of this case is recited by the solicitor general in his #omment dated(ecember '%, %&&' as follows- D

%. The instant case stemmed from a consolidated complaint against privaterespondents Agencia #ebuanaK/. *huillier andLor $argueritte *huillier +*huillier forillegal dismissal +ec., pp. !K@. The Agencia #ebuana is a sole proprietorship

operated by $argueritte *huillier.

'. Two +' osition apers were filed by petitioners, one by *eiden 0. 1ernande7,6loria 4. Adriano, 0milia A. )egapatan, 8esus . Tomongha, 0leonor A. FuiManola, Asteria #. 2campo :sic ;, 1lorida 3illaceran, 1lorida 4. Tallado :sic ; and 4renda A.6adiano +ec., pp. D&K@@ and the other by $arilyn 0. *im and 8oseph #anonigo+0hibit "#K".

C. In their osition apers, petitioners alleged that they were employed by *huillier,as follows-

)ame osition (ate of0mployment

*atest>alaryL$onth

(ate of(ismissal

%. *eiden 0.1ernande7

#ashier (ec. C, %&@ ',@@B.BB 8uly %&, %&&B

'. 6loria 4. Adriano

Appraiser 8uly %B, %&DC C,C!B.BB 8uly %&, %&&B

C. 0milia A.)egapatan

>ales 6irl $arch &, %&!! ',&@B.BB 8uly %&, %&&B

. 8esus .Tomongha

2ffice #lerk 8uly %&D C,BDB.BB 8uly %&, %&&B

. 0leonor A.FuiManola

2ffice #lerk (ec. @, %&D! ',&@B.BB 8uly '%, %&&B


9/27

!. Asteria #.#ampo

#lerk $ay 'D, %&DD ',&!B.BB 8uly %&, %&&B

D. 1lorida3illaceran

>ales #lerk $arch @, %&DC ',&!B.BB 8uly %&, %&&B

@. 1lorida 4.Talledo

awnshopriter

8une %&, %&D' C,BB.BB 8uly %&, %&&B

&. 4renda A.6adiano

awnshopTeller

$arch D, %&DD C,B%.BB 8uly %&, %&&B

%B. $arilyn 0.*im

4ranch$anager

8une %&@ C,DBB.BB 1eb. %!, %&&B

%%. 8oseph $.#anonigo

ecord Neeper 8une %&@@ ',DBB.BB 8uly %, %&&B

etitioners 1ernande7, Adriano, )egapatan, Tomongha, FuiManola, #ampo,3illaceran, Talledo, and 6adiano further alleged that prior to and during early 8uly%&&B, they "demanded" from $argueritte *huillier an increase in their salaries sinceher business was making good and that she was evading payment of taes bymaking false entries in her records of account< that *huillier became angry andthreatened them that something would happen to their employment if they wouldreport her to the 4I< that shortly thereafter, *huillier suspected them of stealing 9ewelry from the pawnshop< that on 8uly %&, %&&B, *huillier verbally informed themnot to report for work as their employment had been terminated< that from 8uly 'B,%&&B they did not report for work< and on 8uly 'C, %&&B, they filed the instantcomplaint +ec., pp. D&K@@.

2n their part, petitioners *im and #anonigo alleged that in early 8anuary %&&B and in8une %&&B, respectively, they demanded increases in their salaries since they notedthat *huillier had a very lucrative business besides evading ta payments by makingfalse entries in her records of account< that they also informed her that they intendedto 9oin the Associated *abor Enion +A*E, which made *huillier angry, causing her tothreaten them that should they report her to the 4I and 9oin the A*E somethingwould happen to their employment< that *huillier advised them to tender theirresignations as they were reportedly responsible for some anomalies at the Agencia#ebuanaK/ *huillier< that *huillier assured them that they will be given separation


10/27

pay< that they asked *huillier that they be allowed to confront the persons whoreported to her about their supposed involvement in the alleged anomalies but sheignored it and told them to tender their respective resignations effective 1ebruary %!,%&&B +for *im and 8uly %, %&&B +for #anonigo< and that they were not givenseparation pay +(ecision, pp. !K@< ec., pp. '!K'@.

. In her osition aper, *huillier, represented initially by Atty. $alcolm 3. >eno,alleged that-

a In the case of $arilyn *im, on 8anuary %C, %&&B, she was informedthat an investigation will be conducted by *huillier because of thereport received by 1lora 6o, also an employee of *huillier, that *imsold to a company consumer her own 9ewelry, in violation of thecompany house rules< on 8anuary '', %&&B, a )otice of IntendedTermination was served upon her requiring her to submit a writteneplanation within @ hours from receipt< *im did not submit a writteneplanation but actively participated in the investigation where sheadmitted having committed the violation complained of< in view of her

admission of guilt, the company lawyer recommended to themanagement her demotion and transfer without reduction of salary<after *im5s receipt of a copy of the investigation report, she sentthrough her lawyer a letter signifying her intention to resign and herwillingness to eecute a promissory note for her indebtedness< thecompany gave *im a draft of the promissory note which was neverreturned by her< on 1ebruary ', %&&B she tendered an irrevocableletter of resignation, hence, she was not terminated< and because ofthe malicious and false complaint filed by *im, the company wascompelled to file a counterKcomplaint for er9ury against her beforethe 2ffice of the #ity rosecutor of #ebu #ity +ec., pp. &'K&C< &D.

b In the case of 8esus Tomongha, he was found to have stolen

"rematado" 9ewelries worth DB,!DB.BB sometime in $arch %&&B<instead of attending the investigation scheduled for this offense, heabandoned his 9ob although his application for leave of absence wasnot approved< *huillier asked the company lawyer to talk withTomongha for him to return to work so that he could pay hispecuniary liability out of his salary< *huillier made it a preKcondition for his return to work that he eecutes a promissory note for hisindebtedness< on April %B, %&&B, he eecuted a promissory note andwas allowed to return to work< on 8uly 'B, %&&B, he and the otherpetitioners, abandoned their employment< he was not dismissed buthe was allowed to return to work and was only made to eecute apromissory note when the company found out sometime in $arch%&&B that he had stolen "rematado" 9ewelries worth DB,!DB.BB+ec., pp. &DK%B%.

c In the case of the other petitioners, on 8uly %&, %&&B, 6loria Adriano was found by 1lora 6o to have overKdeclared the weightsand values of certain items of 9ewelry pawned to the company, as aresult of which, upon investigation, the pawnshop was found to havelost the amount of %D,@B.BB< a letter dated 8uly %&, %&&B wasserved upon Adriano to eplain within D' hours why she should not


11/27

be terminated< on 8uly 'B, %&&B, 6loria Adriano, 1lorida 3illaceran,0milia )egapatan, 4renda 6adiano, *eiden 1ernande7, 8esusTomongha, Asteria #ampo and 1lorida Talledo did not report for workalthough no requests for leave of absence were filed by them, whichabsence violated company rules< on 8uly '%, %&&B, the saidemployees did not report for work< another employee, 0leonor

FuiManola, also did not report for work although she did not file arequest for leave of absence< on 8uly 'C, %&&B the said nine +&employees did not report for work< because of this unusual incident,the management decided to make an inventory of the transactions in Agencia #ebuana and the "rematado" diamondKstudded 9ewelry< theinventory showed that the pawnshop incurred a considerable loss asa result of the anomalous overpricing of pawned items and theemployees immediately responsible were 6loria Adriano, 1loridaTalledo and *eiden 1ernande7, being the appraiser, writer and prayer,respectively< the inventory also showed that of the "rematado"diamondKstudded 9ewelries, items worth %,&','BB.BB were lost forwhich 1lorida 3illaceran and 0milia )egapatan were directlyresponsible, being the employees entrusted with their safekeeping< a

case of 0stafa was filed on 8uly ', %&&B before the 2ffice of the #ityrosecutor of #ebu #ity against 6loria Adriano, 1lorida Talledo,*eiden 1ernande7, Asteria #ampo, 4renda 6adiano, 1lorida3illaceran, 0milia )egapatan, and 8esus Tomongha and three +Cother unknown persons< a case of Theft was filed on August %!, %&&Bwith the 2ffice of the #ity rosecutor of #ebu #ity against 1lorida3illaceran and 0milia )egapatan< when *huillier left for /ongkong on8uly %&, %&&B< she did not terminate the employment of 6loria Adriano nor was she advised not to report for work, although a letterwas served upon her requiring her to eplain within D' hours why sheshould not be terminated from her employment< when *huillier arrivedfrom /ongkong, she caused to be served upon the eight +@

petitioners who 9oined Adriano, letter dated 8uly ', %&&B requiringthem to eplain the sudden abandonment of their posts< petitioners,ecept *im, instead of giving an eplanation, claimed that theiremployment:s; were terminated on 8uly %&, %&&B< *huillier wasprevented from pursuing any action in respect of the illegalabandonment of their work by the nine +& petitioners because shewas served with summons in the instant case< petitioners did notreport for work and voluntarily abandoned their work on 8uly %&, %&&Bin order to dramati7e their sympathy for 6loria Adriano, and theywere not dismissed from their employment< their demand for anaward of damages and attorney5s fees was unwarranted< petitionershad no cause of action against *huillier because they were notterminated from employment< and FuiManola could not have been

terminated from employment on 8uly '%, %&&B because *huillier wasin /ongkong at that time +ec., pp. &!K%B@.

!. Trial on the merits ensued and hearings were scheduled on 8uly , @, and %',%&&%.

D. The hearing scheduled on 8uly , %&&% was, however, postponed by agreement ofthe parties as shown in the minutes of the proceedings on 8uly @, %&&%-


12/27

REMARKS

This case was scheduled for the crossKeamination of the lastwitnesses +sic , $arilyn *im, who is one of the complainants of this

+sic consolidated cases.

The scheduled dates was +sic 8uly , @, and %', %&&% which dateswere for the crosseamination +sic of $arilyn *im and for therespondents to present their evidence.

The 8uly , %&&% +sic was postponed upon agreement :sic ; of theparties and counsels and that it was aggreed +sic the repondents+sic counsel will cross eamine $arilyn *im on 8uly @, %&&% and forthe respondents to present their evidence on 8uly %', %&&%. In asmuch +sic as the respondents and their counsel failed to appeartoday to crossKeamine $arilyn *im, we moved that the respondent

be declared having waived their rights +sic to crossKeamine $arilyn*im. +ec., p. %D!.

@. 2n 8uly @, %&&%, counsel for petitioners filed #omplainants5 1ormal 2ffer of0vidence +ec., pp. %@'K%@D.

&. At the hearing scheduled on 8uly %', %&&%, Atty. >eno and *huillier failed toappear. Thus, counsel for petitioners submitted the instant case for resolution +ec.,p.%@%.

%B. 2n 8uly %@, %&&%, a "uling" was issued by *abor Arbiter 3elasque7, admittingcomplainants5 ehibits +ec., pp. %@&K%&B.

%%. 2n 8uly CB, %&&%, counsel for petitioners filed an Ergent $otion 1or 0arly(ecision +ec., pp. %&%K%&C.

%'. 2n August !, %&&%, Atty. >eno filed a #omment to the 2ffer of 0hibits ith#ounterK$anifestation stating that-

:T;he failure of undersigned to appear on the date of hearing was forthe reason that his car bogged down, as in fact he called up the2ffice of the /earing 2fficer. hile his absence may be considered awaiver to crossKeamine the witness, it cannot be taken to meanforfeiture of the right to present admissible evidence against the

complainant witness. +ec., pp. %&K%&D

%C. 2n August &, %&&%, Atty. >eno filed his #omment on #omplainants5 Ergent$otion 1or 0arly (ecision praying that *huillier be given a period of ten +%B daysfrom August &, %&&% within which to submit additional affidavits and thereafter toconsider the cases submitted for resolution +ec., pp. %&&K'BB.


13/27

%. 2n August %, %&&%, petitioners filed a "#ounterK#omment 2n espondent5s#omment of :sic ; $otion 1or 0arly (ecision5 alleging that under ule 3II, >ection %B+c of the evised ules of #ourt of the )*# which reads-

c In case of un9ustified nonKappearance by the respondent duringherLhis turn to present evidence, despite due notice, the case shall beconsidered submitted for decision on the basis of the evidence so farpresented.

the nonKappearance of *huillier or its counsel on the scheduled dates of hearing on8uly @ and %', %&&%, was clearly un9ustified +ec., pp. 'B'K'B.

%. 2n 2ctober %, %&&%, Atty. >eno filed a $otion eiterating The equest 1or>ubmission 2f Additional Affidavits therein alleging that *huillier5s previous motion topresent additional affidavits had not been acted upon< and that he had not receivedan order considering the instant case submitted for resolution. ith the motion,

*huillier submitted the affidavits of additional witnesses, praying that saidsupplemental affidavits be admitted and presentation of additional evidence beallowed +ec., pp. 'BDK'B&.

%!. 2n 2ctober %!, %&&%, petitioners filed an 2pposition 2n :sic ; espondents5equest 1or >ubmission 2f Additional Affidavits And Ergent $otion To elease(ecision, alleging that counsel for *huillier was given ample opportunity to presenthis evidence< that by his failure to appear at the scheduled hearings without anyreason or prior motion for postponement, he was deemed to have waived his right topresent evidence< and that about the later part of August %&&%, upon learning that*abor Arbiter 3elasque7 would be transferred to )*#, Tacloban, they +petitionersinquired about the status of the instant case and they were informed by *abor Arbiter3elasque7 that a (ecision was already rendered +ec., pp. 'BCK'B.

2n August CB, %&&%, the labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioners. 2n appeal,espondent )*# vacated the labor arbiter5s order and remanded the case for furtherproceedings. It subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration.

Respondent NLRC's Ruling

uled the )*#- 8

In resolving this issue :of due process;, it is necessary to go over the pertinent provisionsof the %&&B )*# ules of rocedure, more particularly >ec. %%, ule 3.

ule 3 O roceedings 4efore the *abor Arbiters-

>ec. %%. )onKappearance of arties at #onferenceL/earings. O +aTwo +' successive absences at a conferenceLhearing by thecomplainant or petitioner, who was duly notified thereof may besufficient cause to dismiss the case without pre9udice. here proper 9ustification, however, is shown by proper motion to warrant the reKopening of the case, the *abor Arbiter shall call a second hearing and


14/27

continue the proceedings until the case is finally decided. (ismissalof the case for the second time due to the un9ustified nonKappearanceof the complainant or petitioner who was duly notified thereof shall bewith pre9udice.

b In case of two +' successive nonKappearances by the respondent,

despite due notice, during the complainant5s presentation ofevidence, the complainant shall be allowed to present evidence ex-

parte, sub9ect to crossKeamination by the respondent, where proper,at the net hearing. Epon completion of such presentation ofevidence for the complainant, another notice of hearing for thereception of the respondent5s evidence shall be issued, with awarning that failure of the respondent to appear shall be construed assubmission by him of the case for resolution without presenting hisevidence.

c In case of two +' successive un9ustified nonKappearances by therespondent during his turn to present evidence, despite due notice,

the case shall be considered submitted for decision on the basis ofthe evidence so far presented.

The established fact is that 8uly @ and %', %&&% were the scheduled dates for thecrossKeamination of $arilyn *im, last witness for the complainants and the start ofrespondents5 presentation of evidence. It is also not disputed that respondent andcounsel failed to appear at the 8uly @ hearing. A scrutiny o the !inutes o the "uly #$%&&% hearing ould hoe(er re(eal that date as alloted )sic* purposely or thecross-exa!ination o Marilyn Li! and that respondents' presentation o e(idenceould start on "uly %+$ %&&%. ,page %.$ records/ Technically$ the La0or Ar0iter ascorrect in ruling that respondent had ai(ed her right to cross-exa!ine co!plainantMarilyn Li! hen she ailed to appear on "uly #$ %&&%. 1ut deinitely$ it as error orhi! to consider the case su0!itted or decision hen respondent ailed to appear on

"uly %+$ %&&%. The a0o(e-cited rules are clear and explicit . 2t ta3es to successi(eand un4ustiied non-appearance on the part o respondent 0eore he or she can 0econsidered to ha(e ai(ed his5her right to present e(idence and thereater toconsider the case su0!itted or decision on the 0asis o the e(idence thus ar

presented . Respondent's a0sence on "uly %+$ %&&% as 0ut her irst since$ as pointed out$ it as on that day that she as supposed to start presenting here(idence. hat the *abor Arbiter should have done was to set another date for thereception of respondent5s evidence. If she still failed to appear, his reliance on >ec.%% +c, ule 3 of the )ew ules of rocedure of the )*# would have been 9ustifiedand this #ommission would not hesitate to uphold him on that respect. As it is, thequestioned ruling was, indeed, premature to say the least. hile concern for the lessprivileged workers and speediin :sic ; the disposition of labor cases are highlycommendable, those considerations should not run roughshod over wellKestablishedprinciples of due process.

It may be argued that the evidence sought to be introduced by respondent arecontained in the additional affidavits which now form part of the records, hence this#ommission can now decide this appeal on the merits. It is with more reason thatthis case should be remanded not only to allow respondent to formally present herevidence, but also to allow complainants to crossKeamine and confront theiraccusers. +0mphasis supplied.


15/27

)ot satisfied, petitioners filed the present petition before us under ule ! of the ules of#ourt. 9

The 2ssues

etitioners submit to this #ourt the following issues- 10

A

The /onorable #ommission has committed serious reversible error amounting to agrave abuse of discretion and in ecess of 9urisdiction in finding that the privaterespondent was not afforded due process by the hearing labor arbiter, particularly thereception of private respondent5s evidence.

4

The /onorable #ommission has committed serious reversible error amounting to agrave abuse of discretion and in ecess of 9urisdiction in finding that the declaration

by the hearing labor arbiter submitting these cases for decision on 8uly %', %&&% wasnot in accordance with ule 3 >ection II of the %&&B )ew ules of rocedure of the)*# +attached hereto as anne "#".

#

The /onorable #ommission has committed serious reversible error amounting to agrave abuse of discretion and in ecess of 9urisdiction in giving importance to privaterespondent5s additional alleged affidavits which were filed only on 2ctober %, %&&%+attached hereto as anne "6K%", by way of attaching the same in privaterespondent5s motion reiterating request for submission of additional affidavits+attached hereto as anne "6", long after the hearing labor arbiter rendered a

decision on August CB, %&&' +attached hereto as anne "0", contrary to the privaterespondent5s prayer and commitment +attached hereto as anne "1K%".

(

The /onorable #ommission has committed serious reversible error amounting to agrave abuse of discretion, in substance and in law, in not modifying the appealeddecision of the hearing labor arbiter +attached hereto as anne "0" with respect tothe accuracy of the monetary awards pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the*abor #ode, its implementing rules and regulations and pursuant particularly to thecelebrated case of Roche ,6hilippines/$ et als. :sic ; (s. NLRC$ et als., :sic ; 6.. )o.@CCC, 2ctober %', %&@&.

0

The /onorable #ommission has no 9urisdiction to entertain private respondent5s twoappeals.

ut differently but more plainly, the issues in this case are as follows-


16/27

%. (id the )*# acquire 9urisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding the alleged insufficiencyof the appeal bond?

'. ere private respondents deprived of due process of law by the labor arbiter?

C. ere petitioners illegally dismissed?

. Assuming petitioners were illegally dismissed, was the computation of the backwages,service incentive leave pay and damages valid and correct?

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious. e hold that the private respondents were not denied dueprocess of law by the labor arbiter< and that nine of the petitioners were illegally dismissed,but that etitioners *im and #anonigo were not.

First 2ssue- 2nsuiciency o Appeal 1ond

etitioners contend that espondent )*# did not acquire 9urisdiction over the appeal ofprivate respondents because the appeal bond was insufficient. Although the total monetaryaward in their favor was %,BD@,'BB., private respondents posted a cash bond in theamount of D',%@C.BB only. In computing the monetary award for the purpose of posting anappeal bond, private respondents relied on ule 3I, >ection ! of the %&&B )ew ules ofrocedure of the )*# and ecluded the award for damages, litigation epenses andattorney5s fees. etitioners argue however that the said rule cannot prevail over Article ''C of the *abor #ode, which does not provide for such eclusion.

e agree with private respondents. Article ''C of the *abor #ode provides-

2n case o a 4udg!ent in(ol(ing a !onetary aard$ an appeal 0y the e!ployer !ay0e perected only upon the posting o a cash or surety 0ond issued 0y a reputa0le0onding co!pany duly accredited 0y the Co!!ission in the a!ount e7ui(alent tothe !onetary aard in the 4udg!ent appealed ro!.

In any event, the decision of the *abor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separatedemployee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately beeecutory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to workunder the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separationor, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of abond by the employer shall not stay the eecution for reinstatement provided

therein . . . +0mphasis supplied.

2n the other hand, ule 3I, >ection ! of the %&&B )*# )ew ules of rocedure, 11 invokedby private respondent, provides-

>ec. !. 4ond. In case of the decision of a *abor Arbiter involves a monetary award,an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash orsurety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the#ommission or the >upreme #ourt in an amount equivalent to the monetary award.


17/27

The #ommission may, in meritorious cases and upon $otion of the Appellant, reducethe amount of the bond. /owever, an appeal is deemed perfected upon the postingof the bond equivalent to the monetary awardexclusi(e o !oral and exe!plaryda!ages as ell as attorney's ees.

)othing herein however, shall be construed as etending the period of appeal.

+0mphasis supplied.

There is no conflict between the two provisions. Article ''C lays down the requirement thatan appeal bond should be filed. The implementing rule, on the other hand, eplains how theappeal bond shall be computed. The rule eplicitly ecludes moral and eemplary damagesand attorney5s fees from the computation of the appeal bond. This eclusion has beenrecogni7ed by the #ourt in a number of cases. /ence, in Erectors (s. NLRC , 12 the #ourtnullified an )*# order requiring the posting of an appeal bond which, among others, "evenincluded in the computation the award of BB,BBB.BB or !oral and exe!plary da!ages."Indeed, the said implementing rule is a contemporaneous construction of Article ''C by the )*#pursuant to the mandate of the *abor #ode< hence, it is accorded great respect by this #ourt. 1

In line with the desired ob9ective of our labor laws to resolve controversies on their merits,the #ourt has held that the filing of a bond in appeals involving monetary awards should begiven liberal construction. 1-The rule requiring the employer to post a cash or surety bond toperfect his appeal assures the workers that they will receive the money 9udgment awarded tothem upon the dismissal of the employer5s appeal. It also discourages employers from using anappeal to delay or even evade their obligation to satisfy the 9ust and lawful claims of theiremployees. 15

/ence, deducting from the total monetary award of %,BD@,'BB. the amount of'BB,BBB.BB for moral and eemplary damages, &@,B%@.' for attorney5s fees andCB,BBB.BB for litigation epenses, the amount of the bond should be DB,%@'.. Thus,the appeal bond actually posted in the amount of D',%@C is even more than the amount ofappeal bond that may be required from private respondents under espondent )*#5s

rules.

Second 2ssue- No 8enial o 8ue 6rocess

The )*# 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 8uly @and %', %&&%. Ender the )*# ules of rocedure, a case may be deemed submitted fordecision on the basis of the evidence thus far adduced in the event respondent incurs twosuccessive absences "during his turn to present evidence." hile the hearing on 8uly %',%&&% was for the presentation of herein private respondents5 evidence, the )*# found thatthe hearing on 8uly @, %&&% was scheduled for the crossKeamination of petitioners5 witness.>ince the absences were not made during respondents5 "turn to present evidence," publicrespondent remanded the case to the labor arbiter for "further proceedings."

etitioners dispute the )*# ruling, contending that the parties in this case were able tosubmit their respective position papers together with supporting affidavits and otherdocuments. They stress that private respondents5 failure to attend the hearings on 8uly @ and%', %&&%, without any 9ustification or motion for postponement, warranted the submission ofthe case for decision pursuant to >ection %%, ule 3 of the %&&B )ew ules of rocedure ofthe )*#. They insist that the hearing on 8uly @, %&&% was scheduled to afford private


18/27

respondents not only an opportunity "to crossKeamine petitioner5s last witness, $arilyn *im,:but also; to start the presentation of :their; evidence . . ." 1

2n the other hand, private respondents argue that the labor arbiter erred in considering theabsence of their counsel during the hearings scheduled on 8uly @ and 8uly %', %&&% aswaiver not only of the right to crossKeamine but of the right to present evidence. They

further contend that the labor arbiter released his decision notwithstanding the pendency ofthree unresolved motions. 1/ These circumstances clearly show that they were not afforded dueprocess of law. 18

To make a clear ruling, we again cite ule 3, >ection %% of the %&&B ules of rocedure ofespondent )*#, which provides-

>ec. %%. Non-appearance o 6arties at Conerence59earings. O +a Two +'successive absences at a conferenceLhearing by the complainant or petitioner, whowas duly notified thereof, may be sufficient cause to dismiss the case withoutpre9udice. here proper 9ustification, however, is shown by proper motion to warrantthe reKopening of the case, the *abor Arbiter shall call a second hearing and continue

the proceedings until the case is finally decided. (ismissal of the case of the secondtime due to the un9ustified nonKappearance of the complainant or petitioner who wasduly notified thereof shall be with pre9udice.

+b In case of two +' successive nonKappearances by the respondent, despite duenotice, during the complainant5s presentation of evidence, the complainant shall beallowed to present evidence ex parte, sub9ect to crossKeamination by therespondent, where proper, at the net hearing. Epon completion of such presentationof evidence for the complainant, another notice of hearing for the reception of therespondent5s evidence shall be issued, with a warning that failure of the respondentto appear shall be construed as submission by him of the case for resolution withoutpresenting his evidence.

+c 2n case o to ,+/ successi(e un4ustiied non-appearances 0y the respondentduring his turn to present e(idence$ despite due notice$ the case shall 0e consideredsu0!itted or decision on the 0asis o the e(idence so ar presented . +0mphasissupplied.

It is undisputed that private respondents5 counsel failed to attend the hearings on the twoaforementioned dates. $oreover, the labor arbiter 19 and the )*# held that the hearing on8uly @, %&&% was only for the crossKeamination of herein petitioners5 witness, while that on 8uly%', %&&% was for the reception of private respondents5 evidence. This notwithstanding, we holdthat the )*# committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding the case to the labor arbiter.

rivate 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, therequirements of due process are satisfied where the parties are given the opportunity to submitposition papers. 21 In any event, espondent )*# and the labor arbiter are authori7ed under the*abor #ode to decide a case on the basis of the position papers and documents submitted. 22 Theholding of an adversarial trial depends on the discretion of the labor arbiter, and the partiescannot demand it as a matter of right. In other words, the filing of position papers and supportingdocuments fulfilled the requirements of due process. 2 Therefore, there was no denial of this rightbecause private respondents were given the opportunity to present their side. 2-


19/27

$oreover, it should be noted that private respondents did not dispute the order of the laborarbiter submitting the case for decision immediately after its issuance. *ikewise, they failed topresent additional evidence on the date they themselves specified. It was only on August !,%&&% that private respondents5 counsel, in his #omments to the 2ffer of 0hibits 25 withcounterKmanifestation, eplained his failure to appear at the hearing on 8uly @, %&&%. /iseplanation, quoted below, is not compelling. 2

The failure of the undersigned to appear on the date of hearing was for the reason thathis car bogged down, as in fact he called up the 2ffice of the /earing 2fficer. hile hisabsence may be considered a waiver to crossKeamine the witness, it cannot be taken tomean forfeiture of the right to present admissible evidence against the complainantKwitness.

Three days later on August &, %&&%, private respondents moved that they be given a "periodof ten days from August &, %&&%" O or until August %&, %&&%O within which to submitadditional affidavits, "after which, the cases will be deemed submitted for resolution on thebasis of complainants5 evidence and respondents5 position paper and the additionalaffidavits." 2/ #ounsel, however, failed to submit the supposed evidence on said date. 2n 2ctober %, %&&%, private respondents filed a $otion eiterating the equest for >ubmission of Additional

Affidavits. 28 Again, private respondents did not submit the said documents.

As earlier noted, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, to eplainone5s side, or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. In the case atbar, private respondents were given ample opportunity to do 9ust that but they failed, forunknown reasons, to avail themselves of such opportunity. They themselves moved that theybe allowed to present additional affidavits on August %&, %&&%, but they never did< no validreason was given for their failure to do so. Their contention that the labor arbiter failed to ruleon their motion deserves scant consideration. It is aiomatic O in fact, it is plainlycommonsensical O that when a counsel asks for an etension of time within which to file apleading, he must be ready with that pleading on the date specified in his motion, evenabsent a resolution or order disposing of his motion.

e cannot remand the instant case to the labor arbiter for further proceedings. espondent)*#, on the basis of the evidence on record, could have resolved the dispute. To remand itto the labor arbiter is to delay needlessly the disposition of this case, which has beenpending since 8uly 'C, %&&B. It becomes our duty under the circumstances to determine thevalidity of the allegations of the parties. emanding the case to the labor arbiter will 9ustfrustrate speedy 9ustice and, in any event, would be a futile eercise, as in all probability thecase would end up with this #ourt. e shall thus rule on the substantial claims of the parties.

Third 2ssue- 6etitioners :ere 2llegally 8is!issed

rivate respondents controvert the claim of illegal dismissal by maintaining that petitionersabandoned their employment. They aver that on 8uly %&, %&&B, etitioner 6loria Adriano,pawnshop appraiser, overKdeclared the weights and values of pawned pieces of 9ewelry,which allegedly caused a loss of at least %D,@B. In a letter dated 8uly %&, %&&B, theyrequired etitioner Adriano to eplain within D' hours why her employment should not beterminated. 2n 8uly 'B, %&&B, however, etitioner Adriano together with etitioners Asteria#ampo, *eiden 1ernande7, 4renda 6adiano, 0milia )egapatan, 0leonor FuiManola, 8esusTomongha, 1lorida Talledo and 1lorida 3illaceran allegedly did not report for work withoutany ecuse. Thus, private respondents concluded that petitioners abandoned theiremployment. They also state that they intended to pursue legal action against the saidpetitioners for "illegal abandonment." 4ut before they could do so, they received summons


20/27

requiring them to respond to the complaints of illegal dismissal filed by the said ninepetitioners. 29

2n the other hand, petitioners maintain that on 8uly %&, %&&B, rivate espondent$arguerite *huillier, the pawnshop owner, told them not to report for work because theiremployment had been terminated. Thus, they did not report for work the following day, 8uly

'B, %&&B. 2n 8uly 'C, %&&B, they filed their respective complaints before the egional Arbitration 4oard of espondent )*#.

In view of the conflicting claims of the parties, we eamined the records of this case andfound that private respondents did not abandon their employment< rather, they were illegallydismissed.

To succeed in pleading abandonment as a valid ground for dismissal, the employer mustprove +% the intention of an employee to abandon his or her employment and +' an overtact from which such intention may be inferred< i .e., the employee showed no desire toresume his work. 0 $ere absence is not sufficient. The employer must prove a deliberate andun9ustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of

returning.

1

rivate respondents failed to discharge this burden. The claim of abandonment wasinconsistent with the immediate filing of petitioners5 complaint for illegal dismissal and prayer forreinstatement. 1or how can an inference be made that an employee had no intention of returningto work, when he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal praying for reinstatement three days afterthe alleged abandonment? 2 $oreover, considering that petitioner had been with awnshop*huillier for several years O ranging from si +! years to thirty three +CC years O it is unlikelythat they would simply leave their employment. #learly, there is no cogent basis for privaterespondents5 theory that said petitioners abandoned their work. In this light, we sustain the findingof the labor arbiter that said petitioners were illegally dismissed, with neither 9ust cause nor dueprocess.

6etitioners Li! and Canonigo Resigned

The foregoing holding cannot apply to etitioners $arilyn *im and 8oseph #anonigo,however.

*im claims that rivate espondent *huillier forced her to resign, but at the same timeassured her of separation pay. 2n 1ebruary , %&&B, prior to *im5s letter of resignation dated1ebruary ', %&&B, - her lawyer proposed the following to rivate espondent *huillier- 5

%. That our client $s. $arilyn *im be given immediately a clearance upon resignationfrom your good company and payment of separation pay at the rate of one month peryear of service< and

'. That our client is willing to eecute a promissory note on her indebtedness, andwill pay upon the same terms prevailing before her resignation. 2ur client5s ability tosettle her indebtedness should be given kind consideration by your companyconsidering that her eventual resignation will render her 9obless for a while. 4esides,per Investigation eport )o. ', >eries of %&&B, conducted by your esident #ounsel, Atty. $alcolm 3. >eno, our client has impressed your esident #ounsel as a personof much valor and great determination when she i!!ediately ad!itted her guilt .


21/27

C. That the various checks she endorsed to your company be returned to our client,so that she could file a case against the issuers or drawers of the same, be it criminalor civil in nature. +0mphasis supplied.

etitioner *im5s testimony that she has never been informed of any wrongdoing until hertermination is belied by her assertions in the aforequoted letter. /er admission of the offense

charged shows that she was not coerced to resign. 4esides, the fact that her complaint for illegaldismissal was filed long after her resignation on 1ebruary ', %&&B suggests that it was a mereafterthought.

2n the other hand, etitioner #anonigo contends that he was forced to sign his letter ofresignation dated 8uly %, %&&B, because rivate espondent *huillier received reports fromother employees that he was responsible for some anomalies in the pawnshop. /e alsostated that he resigned because he was assured of separation pay. / *ike etitioner *im, hedid not immediately file a complaint for illegal dismissal, doing so only on 8uly 'C, %&&B. 1rom theforegoing facts, we see no cogent basis for holding that he was forced to resign. 2n the contrary,we find that he voluntarily tendered his resignation on the assurance of separation pay. #learly,etitioner #anonigo, like *im, was not dismissed< rather, he resigned voluntarily.

Fourth 2ssue- Ser(ice 2ncenti(e Lea(e 6ay and 8a!ages

In his decision, the labor arbiter granted varying amounts of service incentive leave pay tothe petitioners based on the length of their tenure< i .e., the shortest was si years and thelongest was thirtyKthree years. hile recommending that the labor arbiter5s decision bereinstated substantially, the solicitor general recommended that the award of serviceincentive leave be limited to three years. This is based on Article '&% of the *abor #odewhich provides-

Art. '&%. Money Clai!s. O All money claims arising from employerKemployeerelations accruing during the effectivity of this #ode shall be filed within three +Cyears from the time the cause of action accrued< otherwise they shall be forever

barred.

etitioners counter that Article '&% "speaks clearly on the prescription of filing :an; actionupon monetary claims within three +C years from the time the cause of action accrued, but itis not a prescription of a period of time for the computation of monetary claims." 8

The clear policy of the *abor #ode is to grant service incentive leave pay to workers in allestablishments, sub9ect to a few eceptions. >ection ', ule 3, 4ook III of the Implementingules and egulations 9provides that ":e;very employee who has rendered at least one year ofservice shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay." >ervice

incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served "within %' months,whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working, includingauthori7ed absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as amatter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is less than %' months,in which case said period shall be considered as one year." -0 It is also "commutable to its moneyequivalent if not used or ehausted at the end of the year." -1 In other words, an employee whohas served for one year is entitled to it. /e may use it as leave days or he may collect itsmonetary value. To limit the award to three years, as the solicitor general recommends, is tounduly restrict such right. The law indeed does not prohibit its commutation. $oreover, thesolicitor general5s recommendation is contrary to the ruling of the #ourt in 1usta!ante et


22/27

al . (s. NLRC et al ., -2 lifting the threeKyear restriction on the amount of backwages and otherallowances that may be awarded an illegally dismissed employee, thus-

Therefore, in accordance with .A. )o. !D%, petitioners are entitled to their fullbackwages, inclusi(e o alloances and other 0eneits or their !onetary e7ui(alent ,from the time their actual compensation was withheld from them up to the time of

their actual reinstatement. +0mphasis supplied..

>ince a service incentive leave is clearly demandable after one year of service O whethercontinuous or broken O or its equivalent period, and it is one of the "benefits" which wouldhave accrued if an employee was not otherwise illegally dismissed, it is fair and legal that itscomputation should be up to the date of reinstatement as provided under >ection 'D& of the*abor #ode, as amended, which reads-

Art. 'D&. >ecurity of Tenure. O An employee who is un9ustly dismissed from workshall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privilegesand to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other 0eneits or their!onetary e7ui(alent computed from the time his compensation is withheld from him

up to the time of his actual reinstatement. +emphasis supplied.

/owever, the Implementing ules clearly state that entitlement to "benefit provided underthis ule shall start (ecember %!, %&D, the date the amendatory provision of the :*abor;#ode took effect." - /ence, petitioners, ecept *im and #anonigo, should be entitled to serviceincentive leave pay from (ecember %!, %&D up to their actual reinstatement.

etitioners, citing Roche 6hilippines et al . (s. NLRC et al ., -- further contend that the award ofdamages in the case at bar should be increased, for "there are eleven +%%complainantsLpetitioners whose long years of employment was illegally, oppressively andwantonly terminated by the privaterespondent." -5

e disagree. (etermination of the amount of moral damages and attorney5s fees is best leftto the discretion of the labor arbiter. - $oral damages are recoverable where the dismissal ofthe employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or it constituted an act oppressive to labor, or itwas done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. -/ In the case before us,records show that petitioners5 dismissals were done oppressively and in bad faith, for they were 9ust summarily dismissed without even the benefit of notice and hearing. The wellKsettled rule isthat the employer shall be sanctioned for noncompliance with the requirements of, or for failure toobserve, due process in dismissing its employees. -8 etitioners were likewise sub9ected tounnecessary embarrassment or humiliation because of the filing of the criminal charge ofqualified theft, which was later dismissed-9 by the investigating prosecutor. 50 It follows then thatthe award of attorney5s fees is likewise proper, for the "defendant5s act or omission has compelledthe plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur epenses to protect his interest." 51

Full 1ac3ages or 8is!issalsEected Ater March +%$ %&

/aving determined that petitioners, ecept *im and #anonigo, were illegally dismissed, wenet resolve the question of whether espondent )*# gravely abused its discretion inordering the reinstatement of dismissed employees and the payment to them of fullbackwages< or, if reinstatement was no longer feasible, whether the grant to them ofseparation pay plus backwages was correct. In several cases, 52 this #ourt has held thatillegally dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement and full backwages. If reinstatement is


23/27

not possible, the employees are entitled to separation pay and full backwages. Accordingly, theaward to petitioners of backwages for three years should be modified in accordance with Article'D& 5 2f the *abor #ode, as amended by .A. !D%, by giving them full backwages withoutconditions and limitations, the dismissals having occurred after the effectivity of the amendatorylaw on $arch '%, %&@&. 5- Thus, the #ourt held in 1usta!ante. 55

The clear legislative intent of the amendment in ep. Act )o. !D% is to give morebenefits to workers than was previously given them under the $ercury (rug rule or the"deduction of earnings elsewhere" rule. Thus, a closer adherence to the legislative policybehind ep. Act )o. !D% points to "full backwages" as meaning eactly that, i .e., withoutdeducting from backwages the earnings derived elsewhere by the concerned employeeduring the period of his illegal dismissal.

/00120, the petition is hereby 6A)T0( and the assailed (ecision and esolutionare 030>0( and >0T A>I(0. The labor arbiter5s decision is 0I)>TAT0( with$2(I1I#ATI2)>, such that the award of separation pay is deleted and the service incentiveleave pay is computed from (ecember %!, %&D up to petitioners5 actual reinstatement. 1ullbackwages, including the accrued thirteenth month pay, are also awarded to the ninepetitioners O *eiden 1ernande7, 4renda 6adiano, 6loria Adriano, 0melia )egapatan, 8esus

Tomongha, 0leonor FuiManola, Asteria #ampo, 1lorida 3illaceran and 1lorida Talledo Ofrom the date of their illegal dismissal to the time of their actual reinstatement. etitioners*im and #anonigo, whom we find to have voluntarily resigned, are not entitled to any benefit.

>2 2(00(.

Nar(asa$ C;";$ Ro!ero$ Melo and Francisco$ "";$ concur;

Foono

% >pelled "$arguerite" in the petition, it was "$argueritte" in the 2>65s #ommentdated (ecember '%, %&&'.

' Rollo, pp. %K%@.

C 1ourth (ivision, composed of #ommissioner 4ernabe >. 4atuhan, ponente< andresiding #ommissioner 0rnesto 6. *adrido III and #ommissioner Irenea 0. #eni7a,concurring.

(ecision, p. < rollo, p. %@.

Rollo, pp. D&K%B&.

! *abor Arbiter5s decision, pp. '&KC%< rollo, pp. %BDK%B&.

D Rollo, pp. 'BCK'%. There was no paragraph no. in this #omment.

@ Rollo, pp. %K%@.

& The case was deemed submitted for resolution upon the posting of privaterespondent5s memorandum on 2ctober %@, %&&!. +Rollo, p. C@B.


24/27

%B Rollo, pp. %@K'B< original tet in upper case.

%% 0ffective 2ctober &, %&&B. +(iola vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, '''>#A @!B, $ay C%, %&&C.. Although this section was amended on )ovember ,%&&C, its provision for the computation of the bond remains essentially the same.

%' 'B' >#A &D, 2ctober %B, %&&%, per )arvasa," . +now #hief 8ustice- Seealso >tar Angel /andicraft vs. )*#, 'C! >#A @B< >eptember 'B, %&&.

%C 4agatsing vs. #ommittee on rivati7ation, '! >#A CC, 8uly %,%&& citing )estle hilippines, Inc. vs. #ourt of Appeals, 'BC >#A B, )ovember%C, %&&%< 0nrique vs. #ourt of Appeals, ''& >#A %@B, %@!, 8anuary %B,%&& citing >oriano vs. 2ffshore >hipping and $anning #orporation, %DD >#A %C,>eptember %, %&@&.

% $anila $andarin 0mployees Enion vs. )*#, '! >#A C'B, CC% )ovember %&,%&&!< >tar Angel /andicraft vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, 'C! >#A@B, >eptember 'B, %&&< 4lancaflor vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, '%@

>#A C!!, 1ebruary ', %&&C< ada vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, 'B>#A !&, 8anuary &, %&&'< 0rectors, Inc. vs. )*#, 'B' >#A &D, 2ctober %B,%&&%< H4* +Hour 4us *ine vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, %&B >#A%!B, >eptember '@, %&&B.

% 3iron 6arments $anufacturing, #o., Inc., et al. vs. )*# et al., 'BD >#A CC&,$arch %@, %&&'.

%! etition, p. %&< rollo, p. ''.

%D Rollo, p. %D%. These are-

a. Ergent $otion eiterating the equest for >ubmission of Additional Affidavits dated 2ctober %, %&&% submitted by Atty. $alcolm >eno,

b. Ergent $otion to esolve espondents5 ending $otion and#omments on etitioner5s "Ergent $otion To elease (ecision" dated)ovember ', %&&% submitted by Atty. *uis 3. (iores,

c. Ergent $otion to Allow espondents to #rossK0amine#omplainants and To resent 0vidence Ender ule 3, >ec. %% +band +c of the )ew ules of rocedure of the )*#.

%@ Rollo, pp. %DBK%D'.

%& *abor arbiter5s decision, p. '< rollo, p. %BC. The labor arbiter held that ":o;n 8uly@, %&&% and 8uly %', %&&%, the scheduled dates for the respondent to crossKeaminecomplainant, $arilyn *im and for the respondent to present herevidence, respecti(ely , respondent and her counsel without giving reason nor filed:sic ; any motion to postpone failed to appear on the said scheduled dates."+0mphasis supplied. In effect, the labor arbiter belied petitioner5s contention that thehearing on 8uly @, %&&% was for the crossKeamination of the petitioner5switness and for the reception of private respondents5 evidence.


25/27

'B 20id ., pp. 'DK'@< rollo, pp. %BK%B!.

'% 2din >ecurity Agency vs. (e *a >erna, et al., %@' >#A D', D&, 1ebruary '%,%&&B< acific Timber 0port #orp. vs. )*#, '' >#A @!B, 8uly CB, %&&C.

'' #agampan et al. v. )*# et al., %& >#A CC, C&, $arch '', %&&%< >alonga

vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, ' >#A %%%, %%, 1ebruary 'C,%&&! citing *awrence vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, 'B >#A DCD, DB,1ebruary , %&&'. See also acific Timber 0port #orp. vs. )*#, '' >#A @!B,@!', 8uly CB, %&&C< #ommando >ecurity Agency vs. )*#, '%% >#A !, !&, 8uly'B, %&&'< obusta Agro $arine roducts, Inc. vs. 6orombalem, %D >#A &C, &@,8uly , %&@&.

'C Hap vs. Inciong, %@! >#A !!, 8une '%, %&&B< 4. >ta. ita P #ompany, Inc. vs. Arroyo and )*#, %!@ >#A @%, (ecember 'B, %&@@.

' (ivine ord /igh >chool vs. )*#, %C >#A C!, August !, %&@!< $unicipalityof (aet vs. /idalgo 0nterprises, Inc., %C@ >#A '!, August '@, %&@.

' Rollo, pp. DKDD.

'! #omments to the 2ffer of 0hibits, p. '< rollo, p. D!.

'D 20id .,

'@ Rollo, pp. %%'K%%.

'& )*# ecords, p. %%!< rollo, pp. @&K&'.

CB 8ackson 4uilding #ondominium #orporation vs. )ational *abor elations

#ommission, '! >#A C'&, CC', 8uly %, %&&< yethK>uaco *aboratories, Inc. vs.)ational *abor elations #ommission, '%& >#A C!, $arch ', %&&C< (agupan 4us#o., Inc. vs. )*#, %&% >#A C'@, )ovember &, %&&B.

C% *abor vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, '@ >#A %@C, %&@, >eptember%, %&& citing Ningsi7e $anufacturing #orp. vs. )*#, 'C@ >#A C&, )ovember', %&&< 1..1. 0nterprises, Inc. vs. )*#, 'C >#A &C, April '%, %&&.

C' 8ackson 4uilding #ondominium #orporations vs. )ational *abor elations#ommission, supra, at pp. CC'KCCC< emerco 6arments $anufacturing vs. $inisterof *abor and 0mployment, %C >#A %!D, 1ebruary '@, %&@< 8udric #anning #orp.vs. Inciong, %% >#A @@D, August %&, %&@'.

CC )*# ecords, pp. C%'KC%C< T>), 1ebruary 'D, %&&%, pp. %&K'B.

C )*# ecords, p. %%C.

C )*# ecords, pp. %%%K%%'.

C! T>), 1ebruary 'D, %&&%, p. %C.


26/27

CD )*# ecords, pp. C'!KC'D< T>), 1ebruary 'D, %&&%, pp. CCKC.

C@ Rollo, p. ''< emphasis omitted.

C& 0ntitled "ight to service incentive leave."

B >ection C, ule 3, 4ook III, Implementing ules and egulations of the *abor#ode.

% >ection , ule 3, 4ook III, Implementing ules and egulations of the *abor#ode.

' 6.. )o. %%%!%, pp. @K&, )ovember '@, %&&!, per adilla," .

C >ection , ule 3, 4ook III, Implementing ules and egulations of the *abor#ode.

%D@ >#A C@!, 2ctober , %&@&, per 6ancayco," .

Rollo, p. 'C< emphasis omitted.

! #f. >uario vs. 4ank of the hilippine Islands, %D! >#A !@@, !&!, August ',%&@& citing rimero vs. Intermediate Appellate #ourt, %! >#A C, (ecember %,%&@D.

D Article '''B of the )ew #ivil #ode.

@ $agnolia (airy roducts #orp. vs. )*#, '' >#A @C, &%, 8anuary '&, %&&!.

& As of the filing of petition on 8une %B, %&&', a petition for review of the dismissalwas still pending at the (epartment of 8ustice.

B oche +hilippines vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, %D@ >#A C@!,C&D, 2ctober , %&@&< *ope7 vs. 8avier, '' >#A !@, D&, 8anuary '',%&&! citing >partan >ecurity and (etective Agency, Inc. vs. )*#, et al., '%C >#A'@, %&&'< 2ctot vs. HbaMe7, %%% >#A D&.

% Article ''B@, paragraph +' of the #ivil #ode.

' #itytrust 4anking #orporation vs. )*#, '@ >#A !'%, !CB, 8uly %%,%&&! citing Article 'D& of the *abor #ode as amended by A !D%< 6old #ityIntegrated ort >ervice, Inc. vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, ' >#A!'D, 8uly !, %&&< Torillo vs. *eogardo, %&D >#A D%, $ay 'D, %&&%< Indophil Acrylic $fg. #orp. vs. )*#, ''! >#A D'C, >eptember 'D, %&&C< FuinoMes vs.)ational *abor elations #ommission, '! >#A '&, '&@, 8uly %, %&&< $olaveTours #orporation vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, 'B >#A C', C'&,)ovember ', %&&< olymedic 6eneral /ospital vs. )*#, %C >#A 'B, 8anuaryC%, %&@< 0gyptair vs. )ational *abor elations #ommission, %@ >#A %',1ebruary 'D, %&@D.


27/27

C Art. 'D&. >ecurity of Tenure. :as amended by >ection C of A !D%;. O In casesof regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employeeecept for a 9ust cause or when authori7ed by this Title. An employee who is un9ustlydismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rightsand other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to hisother benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation

was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

4ustamante vs. )*#, supra.

20id ., p. @.

jurisprudence silp

Documents