G.R. No. 261670 - Gacasan y Langamin vs. People

Monchito R. Ampeloquio, a former employee of RMI Marketing Corporation (now Jaka Distribution, Inc.), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter found RMI guilty of illegally dismissing him and ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, together with backwages and attorney's fees amounting to P333,034.42.
Ampeloquio was reinstated on August 6, 2004, resuming his position as a merchandiser, and was assigned to various outlets within Metro Manila and later transferred out of Metro Manila to Lucena City and then San Pablo City.

Upon reinstatement, Ampeloquio received a daily wage of P252.00, with no meal or transportation allowances initially provided.
After his transfer outside Metro Manila, he continued receiving the same wage rate, along with a monthly cost of living allowance (COLA) of P720.00.
Ampeloquio noted discrepancies in the wage scales when comparing his pay with that of other merchandisers in the company, citing that his co-employees received higher daily wages, different COLA figures, and additional allowances.

On March 16, 2005, Ampeloquio requested a salary adjustment and retroactive payment of salary differential via a letter to Jaka’s general manager.
A subsequent letter dated July 7, 2006 reiterated his demand for salary adjustments, with an increased claim amount reflecting what other merchandisers received.
Citing disparities, Ampeloquio subsequently filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, COLA, non-payment of meal allowance, and transportation allowance, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-06-04702-06.

The Labor Arbiter, in his decision dated May 25, 2007, ruled in favor of Ampeloquio, ordering Jaka Distribution to pay:

Unpaid benefits computed based on established periods and corresponding wage adjustments according to the applicable Wage Orders.
Moral damages of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P10,000.00.

From April 4, 2005, to June 14, 2005: benefits calculated as underpayment for COLA, meal, and transportation allowances.
From June 15, 2005, to June 5, 2006: wage differential computed based on increased basic wage and COLA, with legal interest and attorney's fees added.

Jaka Distribution filed an appeal, contesting several aspects including the salary differential award, denial of transportation expense reimbursement, and exclusion of moral and exemplary damages.
The NLRC resolution dated November 29, 2007, modified the Labor Arbiter’s award:

The salary differential was recalculated based on the exemptions granted under Wage Orders Nos. 10 and 11.
The final award was reduced to a total salary differential of P22,172.00, with 10% attorney's fees.
Jaka’s policy on transportation reimbursement—that such expenses are only paid from the first outlet to succeeding outlets and not from the employee’s residence—was upheld.

Ampeloquio filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion in:

The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition, citing that the NLRC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, noting that Ampeloquio’s employment conditions significantly differed from those of casual or contractual workers.
The appellate court underscored that while the principle of reinstatement without loss of seniority entitles an employee to the wage or salary rate prior to dismissal (subject to compliance with minimum wage laws), it does not automatically extend to all benefits enjoyed by other employees with different employment statuses.

Whether the computation of wage differential for a reinstated employee should be based on the higher wages and benefits received by other co-employees or constrained to the statutory minimum wage and allowances applicable at the time of reinstatement.

Whether reinstatement "without loss of seniority rights" entitles the employee to benefits and wage scales identical to those subsequently enjoyed by other regular employees, despite differences in their employment conditions (regular versus casual/contractual/seasonal).

Whether the exclusion of transportation expenses—from the employee’s residence to work—along with the denial of moral and exemplary damages, is justified based on company policy and the evidence on record.

Whether the application of the Wage Orders Nos. 10 and 11 exemptions, which led to the reduction of the salary differential award, is a valid exercise of the employer’s and NLRC’s discretion under the law.

Whether the factual and administrative findings regarding wage computations, as upheld by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, withstand judicial scrutiny when challenged on the basis of alleged errors in interpreting Article 223 of the Labor Code.