ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 142400. November 20, 2000]

ADLIN MFG., INC., et al. vs. NLRC, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 20 2000.

G.R. No. 142400 (Adlin Manufacturing, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.)

Private respondents Fernando Vera Cruz, Raul Lopiga, Emeteria Roduta, and Mila Lopez filed complaints for illegal dismissal and payment of monetary claims against petitioners Adlin Manufacturing, Inc. and/or Ecstasy Mills. Judgment was rendered in their favor by the Labor Arbiter who ordered petitioners to pay private respondents the total amount of P432,816.00 for separation pay, backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and balance of salary. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with modification, limiting the award of backwages to private respondents Emeteria Roduta and Mila Lopez to their wages until September 1, 1992.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari. Pursuant to the decision in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 (1998), the petition was referred by the Court to the Court of Appeals which, on September 27, 1999, rendered a decision affirming the decision of the NLRC. The CA later denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioners.

Petitioners then sought review in this Court, but their petition was denied for having been filed late, it appearing from the verified statement of material dates therein that petitioners received the questioned decision of the CA on October 13, 1999 but moved for reconsideration only on January 10, 2000. (Resolution of July 10, 2000)

Petitioners now seek a reconsideration of the denial of their petition. They claim that the statement in their petition that they filed their motion for reconsideration in the CA on January 10, 2000 is a mere typographical error and that the actual date of filing of their motion was October 28, 1999. As proof, petitioners submit a photocopy of their motion for reconsideration in the CA purporting to show that it was filed on October 28, 1999, which is within the reglementary period.

The motion lacks merit. To begin with, the Court cannot take at face value the copy submitted by petitioners of their motion for reconsideration. While it is stamped "certified xerox copy," the authority of the person certifying is not shown.

Moreover, even if petitioners' motion for reconsideration in the CA were timely filed, their petition for review in this case must nonetheless be denied for lack of showing that the CA committed any reversible error. Basically, the petition raises factual issues.

First. Petitioners argue that private respondents Fernando Vera Cruz and Raul Lopiga were guilty of theft of towels, for which a criminal ease for qualified theft has been filed against them. Petitioners cite the affidavits of Margarita Juarez, Erlinda Lopiga, Carmen Sayson, Antonio Carbonilla, Cesar Villaver, Eduardo Caidwell, and Leon Macrol as evidence that private respondents Vera Cruz and Lopiga engaged in a systematic scheme to pilfer goods from petitioners.

As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, however, the affidavits of Margarita Juarez and Erlinda Lopiga are hearsay since they are not based on their own personal knowledge but only on what they had allegedly been told by other people. This defect cannot be cured even if the Labor Arbiter held hearings wherein private respondents Vera Cruz and Lopiga can cross-examine said affiants as petitioners now propose.

As for the affidavits of Carmen Sayson, Antonio Carbonilla, Cesar Villaver, Eduardo Caldwell, and Leon Macrol, petitioners themselves admit that the same were executed only during the pendency of the case in this Court. Petitioners insist that the same should be considered as newly discovered evidence. But to be considered newly discovered evidence, it' must be shown that the affidavits could not have been previously discovered by the exercise of due diligence. (Rule 53, �1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) There is no such showing in this case as petitioners simply allege that the affiants failed to testify before the Labor Arbiter because they had been threatened by respondents.

Petitioners argue that their failure to afford private respondents Vera Cruz and Lopiga notice and hearing should only result in a "minimal sanction" per Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC, 170 SCRA 69 (1989). To be sure, Wenphil was overruled in Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040, Jan. 27, 2000, which held that an employee who is dismissed for cause but without the requisite notice must be paid backwages from the time his employment was terminated until it is determined that the termination of employment is for a just cause. However, the foregoing rule cannot be applied in this case as the dismissal of private respondents Vera Cruz and Lopiga was without just or authorized cause.

Second. With regard to private respondents Emeteria Roduta and Mila Lopez, petitioners claim that they were not dismissed but that they abandoned their jobs. Petitioners advert to the testimonies of private respondents before the Labor Arbiter that they no longer wanted to work for petitioners. A reading of said transcripts shows, however, that private respondents Roduta and Lopez only made the statements to explain why they prayed for separation pay instead of reinstatement.

Third. Petitioners also argue that the lodging with free water and electricity they provided for private respondents should be considered part of the latter's salaries.

This contention is likewise without merit. Art. 102 of the Labor Code expressly provides that "No employer shall pay the wages of an employee by means of promissory notes, vouchers, coupons, tickets, chits, or any object other than legal tender even when expressly requested by the employee." (Emphasis added)

For the foregoing considerations, the Court RESOLVED to DENY petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the resolution of July 10, 2000 with FINALITY, no compelling reason having been given to warrant the grant thereof.

The entry of appearance filed by Atty. Remegio D. Salvador, Jr. as new counsel for private respondents Fernando Vera Cruz and Raul Lopiga with request to be furnished copies of Court processes bearing the latter's conformity is NOTED and GRANTED. The resolution of July 10, 2000 sent to Atty. Sebastian Abrenica, counsel for private respondents, at his given address at 55-C President Quezon Street, Industrial Valley Subdivision, 1800 Marikina, which was returned unserved on grounds that he had "moved" out of said address is DEEMED SERVED on aforesaid counsel.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE