[ G.R. No. 116384. October 9, 2000]

VIOLA R. CRUZ vs. NLRC, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 9 2000.

G.R. No. 116384 (Viola R. Cruz vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Norkis Distributors, Inc., Jose Ramiro A. Carpio, Jr., Wessie Quisumbing, and Elizalde Ampalayo.)

At bar is Motion for Partial Reconsideration interposed by petitioner of the decision of this Court dated February 7, 2000, which set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, and reinstated the resolution of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC RAB No. 10-03-00211-91, in effect affirming the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and back wages to the herein petitioner.

In the present motion, petitioner contends that she is entitled to reinstatement with payment of full back wages, from the time of illegal termination until date of actual reinstatement, or to the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement at the option of the employee, as a necessary consequence of a finding of termination without just cause and due process. Petitioner also seeks equitable adjustment of the award of attorney's fees.

As to the award of attorney's fees by the Labor Arbiter in the amount of P14,056.71, the Court holds that the same is sufficient and equitable under the circumstances, considering that the Court reduced the original amounts of moral and exemplary damages awarded to petitioner from P100,000.00 and P20,000.00 to P50,000.00 and P10,000.00, respectively.

As to petitioner's prayer for reinstatement with full back wages, it is worthy to note that from the resolution of the Labor Arbiter, dated May 28, 1993, awarding separation pay of P25,000.10, petitioner Cruz partially appealed therefrom to the National Labor Relations Commission, contending that the computation of separation pay should be one month salary for every year of service instead of one-half month as granted by the Arbiter, and asking for an increase in the award of damages.1 Rollo, p. 44. When respondent Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter's Resolution and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, petitioner moved for reconsideration, asking for affirmance of the resolution of the Labor Arbiter. As averred by petitioner in her Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC's decision, "the only matters brought on appeal were those by the Complainants-Appellants for the increase in the awards." 2 Rollo, p. 390.

However, from the decision of the Commission reversing the Arbiter's disposition and dismissing the complaint, petitioner appealed to this Court, this time praying for reinstatement without loss of seniority and pay. When the Court resolved to grant the petition and affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, petitioner moved for partial reconsideration, praying for reinstatement and the award of full back wages.

Well settled is the rule that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than what has already been granted, 3 Filflex Manufacturing Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 286 SCRA 245. and the court cannot grant relief on matters not raised on appeal. In this case, the only matter brought on appeal by petitioner to the National Labor Relations Commission was the basis for the computation of separation pay and the increase in the award of damages. In fact, in the partial appeal she filed with the Commission, petitioner specifically asked for "one-month salary for every year of service from March 1997, in lieu of reinstatement".4 Rollo, p. 387. Hence, the decision of the Labor Arbiter granting separation pay in lieu of reinstatement had become final. The only matter brought for consideration by the Commission was the basis for the computation of the separation pay and the increase in the award of damages. Thus, it is not proper for petitioner to now ask to be reinstated when she has already acceded to the ruling of the Labor Arbiter awarding her separation pay, and when petitioner herself expressed her desire not to continue in respondent Norkis, Inc.'s employ, before the Labor Arbiter and the Labor Commission.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the partial motion for reconsideration under consideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com