FIRST
DIVISION
ANTONIO
SURIMA,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 121147
June
26,
1998
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
AND LORETA
PEDIAPCO
LIM,
Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library
D
E C I S I
O N
BELLOSILLO,
J :
Antonio Surima filed on
11 September 1990 a Complaint against private respondent Loreta
Pediapco
Lim for overtime pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay,
premium
pay for holidays and rest days, and underpayment of wages. He alleged
that
he started working with private respondent in 1983 as Cashier of Horace
P. Lim Construction Supply, named after her son Horace, located in San
Jose, Antique. In the same establishment, he was also tasked with
selling
rice and rice husk. Still another job he held for her was as collector
of rentals for her three (3) buildings.
Sometime in 1989,
petitioner
Surima was transferred to Sibalom, Antique, where he worked again as
Cashier
but this time at private respondent's Caltex gasoline station. In
August
of the same year, he also became a salesman in a drugstore owned by her
although during harvest seasons he would be placed in charge of her
business
of buying and selling palay. He was earning at that time, a monthly
salary
of P1,000.00.
On 1 October 1990,
or almost three [3] weeks after he filed his Complaint, petitioner was
allegedly dismissed without just cause, hence his additional claim for
back wages, reinstatement and attorney's fees.
Private respondent
contended that petitioner was first employed by her son, Horace. In
July
1989, when the latter's business flaundered and eventually ceased to
operate,
she hired petitioner as domestic helper receiving an income of P250.00
per week with free board and lodging. He also worked in her drugstore
but
only occasionally. On 1 October 1990 he left his work.
The Labor Arbiter did
not sustain the claim of illegal dismissal for lack of evidence. On the
other hand, he upheld the contention of private respondent that she
hired
petitioner only in July 1989 for which he was adequately compensated.
Thus
on 26 June 1991 the complaint was dismissed.[1]
On appeal, the National
Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] viewed the case differently.
According
to public respondent, respondent Loreta Pediapco Lim had the burden of
producing the employment records of her business enterprise as proof
that
petitioner was not in any way connected with any of her businesses
since
1983. She failed to discharge this burden. Even granting that
petitioner
initially worked with her son, Horace, the undisputed fact is that her
son's business did not have a separate personality of its own. Thus, it
is not difficult to conclude that the business enterprises where
petitioner
worked belonged to one and the same owner, private respondent herself,
hence, the finding of the NLRC that petitioner had been her employee
since
1983.
Furthermore, the NLRC
took into account the fact that only a day after petitioner allegedly
left
his work his counsel sent private respondent a letter protesting his
termination
from the service. This prompt recourse to legal assistance was
considered
inconsistent with the claim of abandonment. Moreover, there was not
even
a compliance by private respondent with the legal requisite of notice
to
petitioner at his last known address.
As a consequence, the
NLRC concluded that petitioner was illegally dismissed so that he was
entitled
to reinstatement with backwages. However, due to the strain in the
relationship
of the parties and the lapse of time, separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement
was considered by the NLRC to be more feasible under the circumstances.
Petitioner was likewise declared entitled to wage differentials, 13th
month
pay, service incentive leave pay and attorney's fees, but his other
claims
were denied for lack of basis. Thus on 12 January 1995 private
respondent
Loreta Pediapco Lim was ordered to pay petitioner the following amounts:
1. Back Wages [1
Oct. 1990 to 30 Sept. 1993]
a. Basic
Salary
P1,000/mo.
x
36 mos. [3 yrs.] P36,000.00
b. 13th
Month
Pay
P92.50/da.
x
26 das./mo. x 3 yrs. P7,215.00
c. Service
Incentive
Leave Pay
P92.50/da.
x
5 das./mo. x 3 yrs. P1,387.50
––––––––
P44,602.50
2. Separation
Pay (8
yrs./length of service+
3 yrs./1 Oct. 1990 to 30 Sept. 1993]
P92.50/da.
x
26 das./mo. x 11 yrs P26,455.00
3. Wage
Differentials
[1 Oct. to 96 Nov. 1990]
P75.00 —
MWR
[Minimum Wage Rate]
P38.46 —
ASR
[Actual Salary Rate]
–––––
P36.50 x 52
das./2
mos. P1,900.08
[27 Nov.
1990
to 28 Dec. 1990]
P82.50 —
MWR
[Minimum Wage Rate]
P38.46 —
ASR
[Actual Salary Rate]
–––––
P44.04 x 27
das./1
mo P1,189.08
(29 Dec.
1990
to 30 Sept. 1993)
P92.50 —
MWR
[Minimum Wage Rate]
P38.46 —
ASR
[Actual Salary Rate]
–––––
P54.04 x
861
das./33 mos. P46,528.44
–––––––––
P49,617.60
4. 13th Month Pay
1990 —
P75.00/da.
x 26 das P1,950.00
1991 —
92.50/da.
x 26 das 2,405.00
1992 —
92.50/da.
x 26 das./mo. 2,405.00
1993 —
92.50/da.
x 26 das./mo.
x 9/12 mos.
1,803.75
–––––––
P8,563.75
5. Service
Incentive
Leave Pay
P92.50 x 5
das./yr.
x 3 yrs P1,387.50
––––––––
Total Money
Claims
P130,626.35
6. Attorney's
Fees of
10% P13,062.63
–––––––––
Grand Total
P143,688.98[2]
Private
respondent moved
for reconsideration while petitioner moved for recomputation of the
awards.
However, both motions were denied on 19 May 1995.[3]
The NLRC found private respondent's motion without merit while that of
petitioner was filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period. The records
showed that petitioner received copy of the decision on 23 January 1995
but moved for recomputation only on 13 February 1995 after the decision
became final and executory on 2 February 1995.
Private respondent
then resorted to this Court in G.R. No. 120404 but her petition was
dismissed
for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.[4]
The dismissal became final and executory on 28 August 1995.[5]
For his part,
petitioner
filed the instant petition assailing the NLRC for its grave abuse of
discretion
in the computation of his monetary awards and prayed that it be
required
to make the necessary recomputation. Petitioner alleges that the NLRC
has
contravened settled jurisprudence when it limited the period of his
entitlement
to back wages, separation pay, wage differentials, 13th month pay and
service
incentive leave pay to only three [3] years reckoned from the time of
his
illegal dismissal. He also asserts that additional awards of wage
differentials,
13th month pay and service incentive leave pay should be granted to him
covering the three-year period prior to the filing of the complaint
since
money claims prescribe in three [3] years.
Respondent counters
that inasmuch as petitioner failed to timely move for reconsideration
he
could no longer seek other reliefs, and that it is perfectly within the
discretion of the NLRC to limit the award of back wages to three [3]
years
since it is not her fault that it took approximately four [4] years for
the appeal to be resolved. However, in the event a recomputation of the
back wages be granted private respondent asks for an opportunity to
prove
petitioner's earnings elsewhere pursuant to Pines City Educational
Center
v. NLRC.[6]
But first, the
procedural
error committed by petitioner.
Petitioner received
copy of the assailed decision on 23 January 1995. Not having filed a
motion
for reconsideration within the ten [10]-day reglementary period, the
decision
became final and executory as to him on 2 February 1995. Petitioner
moved
for recomputation only on 13 February 1995. Along the same line did we
rule in Labudahon v. NLRC[7]
and Orient Express Placement Philippines v. NLRC[8]
that on the strength of Article 223 of the Labor Code and Sec. 14, Rule
VII, New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, in the absence of a motion for
reconsideration timely filed within the ten [10]-day reglementary
period,
the assailed order, resolution or decision of the NLRC becomes final
and
executory after ten [10] calendar days from receipt thereof.
However, fundamental
consideration of substantial justice persuades Us to decide the present
case on the merits rather than to dismiss it on a technicality. In so
doing,
We exercise our prerogative in labor cases that no undue sympathy is to
be accorded to any claim of procedural misstep, the idea being that our
power must be exercised according to justice and equity and substantial
merits of the controversy. As We shall discuss in the succeeding
paragraphs,
the assailed ruling of the NLRC in the instant case is contrary to law
and jurisprudence, thus making certiorari still an available remedy in
the premises.
We had allowed in the
past appeals from the decisions of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC even
if
filed beyond the reglementary period in the interest of substantial
justice.
Among these were Ruga v. NLRC[9]
where Our Decision relied upon by respondent NLRC was not applicable;
City
Fair Corporation v. NLRC[10]
where there was insufficient evidence to justify the enormous amount of
damages awarded; Valderrama v. NLRC[11]
where we preferred to give life to the constitutional mandate for the
protection
of labor; and, Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC[12]
where we considered as enough reasons the Labor Arbiter's lack of
jurisdiction
and perpetuation of unjust enrichment. By the same token, the present
case
deserves liberal treatment.
Article 979 of the
Labor Code as amended by Sec. 34 of RA No. 6715[13]
provides: "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 back wages, 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." The
amendment
took effect on 21 March 1989 and was thus applicable at the time of
petitioner's
dismissal on 1 October 1990. Two vital aspects of the provision have
been
the subject of interpretation by this Court. First, as to the total
amount
of back wages, although the law speaks of "full backwages," Pines City
enunciated the rule that in the ascertainment of the total amount of
back
wages the entire amount derived from employment elsewhere by the
employee
from the date of dismissal up to the date of reinstatement, if any,
should
be deducted therefrom. We have however reconsidered Pines City in
Bustamante
v. NLRC[14]
by holding that conformably with the evident legislative intent as
expressed
in R.A. No. 6715 the back wages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed
employee should not be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by
him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal.
The rationale for the
new ruling is that the employee, while litigating the legality
[illegality]
of his dismissal, must still earn a living to support himself and his
family,
while the employer has to pay full back wages as part of his penalty
for
illegally dismissing his employee. The clear legislative intent of R.A.
No. 6715 as conveyed in Bustamante is to give more benefits to
workers
than what were previously given them under the Mercury Drug
rule
or the "deductions of earnings elsewhere" rule. Second, as to the time
frame for the computation of back wages, the provision mentions the
period
from withholding of compensation up to actual reinstatement, which
period
can be established with facility. However, there may be an instance
when
reinstatement is considered no longer feasible, necessitating award of
separation pay instead. The question now arises: When is the period for
computation of back wages and separation pay supposed to end? Gaco v.
NLRC[15]
addressed the question squarely by holding that in such circumstance,
the
computation shall be up to the time of finality of this Court's
Decision.[16]
Apparently, the justification is that along with the finality of this
Court's
decision the issue on illegal dismissal is finally laid to rest.
We agree with
petitioner
that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in the computation of his
monetary
awards. It shortened the period thereof to three [3] years[17]
without any basis at all and in the process ignored current law and
jurisprudence.
Taking into account that the NLRC awarded separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement,
the period should be up to the finality of this Court's decision. We
must
clarify however that what we are referring to is the decision in G.R.
No.
120404 which finally settled the dispute on illegal dismissal and other
claims of petitioner on 28 August 1995.
Under Article 291 of
the Labor Code, money claims arising from an employer-employee
relationship
must be filed within three [3] years from the time the cause of action
accrued. Again we agree with petitioner that his claims consisting of
wage
differentials, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay may be
recovered
from 11 September 1987, or three years before the date of the filing of
the complaint, up to 11 September 1990.[18]
The amounts that may be awarded shall be in addition to those already
awarded
and which form part of the total monetary awards. It is beyond our
competence
to determine whether the actual salary rate of petitioner was below the
minimum wage rate from 11 September 1987 up to 11 September 1990. The
NLRC
is better equipped to perform this task. Within the same period,
petitioner
has established that he did not receive payments for his 13th month and
service incentive leave and such amounts should be included in the
computation.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is granted. The decision of public respondent NLRC dated 12 January
1995
granting monetary awards to petitioner Antonio Surima is modified. The
NLRC is directed to recompute the following: [a] backwages from 1
October
1990 to 28 August 1995; [b] separation pay from 1983 to 28 August 1995;
[c] wage differentials, from 11 September 1987 to 11 September 1990 if
entitled thereto, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay
covering
the same period; [d] wage differentials, 13th month pay and service
incentive
leave pay from 1 October 1990 to 28 August 1995; and [e] attorney's
fees
of ten percent [10%] of the total monetary awards.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Vitug,
Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Decision penned by Labor Arbiter Dennis D. Juanon; Rollo, p. 23.
[2]
Decision penned by Presiding Commissioner Irenea E. Ceniza with the
concurrence
of Commissioners Bernabe S. Batuhan and Amorito V. Cañete;
Rollo,
p. 39.
[3]
Records, p. 224.
[4]
Rollo of G.R. No. 120404, p, 65.
[5]
Id., p. 70.
[6]
G.R. No. 96779, 10 November 1993, 227 SCRA 655.
[7]
G.R. No. 112206, 11 December 1995, 251 SCRA 129.
[8]
G.R. No. 124766, 30 January 1997, 267 SCRA 287.
[9]
G.R. Nos. 72654-61, 22 January 1990,181 SCRA 266.
[10]
G.R. No. 95711, 21 April 1995, 243 SCRA 572 citing Firestone Tire and
Rubber
Co. v. Larosa, 148 SCRA 191 and Chong Guan Trading v. NLRC, 172 SCRA
832.
[11]
G.R. No. 98239, 25 April 1996, 256 SCRA 466.
[12]
G.R. No. 120506, 28 October 1996, 263 SCRA 638.
[13]
The New Labor Relations Law.
[14]
G.R. No. 111651, 28 November 1996, 265 SCRA 61.
[15]
G.R. No. 104690, 23 February 1994, 230 SCRA 260.
[16]
Reiterated in Oscar Ledesma and Company v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110930, 13
July
1995, 246 SCRA 47; Labor v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110388, 14 September 1995,
248
SCRA 183; Rasonable v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117195, 20 February 1996, 253
SCRA
815; Bustamante v. NLRC, see Note 14.
[17]
Where the illegal dismissal transpired before the effectivity of R.A.
No.
6715, the award of back wages in favor of the dismissed employee is
limited
to three (3) years without deduction or qualification.
[18]
Uy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117983, 6 September 1996, 261 SCRA 505. |