Case Digest (G.R. No. 196936)
Facts:
This is Monchito R. Ampeloquio v. Jaka Distribution, Inc., G.R. No. 196936, July 02, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Monchito R. Ampeloquio was previously found illegally dismissed by a Labor Arbiter and ordered reinstated by decision that also awarded backwages and attorneys’ fees. The Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order became executory and Ampeloquio resumed work as a merchandiser on 6 August 2004 for respondent Jaka Distribution, Inc. (JAKA) (formerly RMI Marketing Corp.), receiving a daily wage of P252.00 and a monthly COLA of P720.00; he had no meal or transportation allowance.After reinstatement Ampeloquio was transferred outside Metro Manila in April 2005; he later complained to JAKA (letters dated 16 March 2005 and 7 July 2006) that his pay and benefits were inferior to those other merchandisers or co‑employees received and sought retroactive adjustment and wage differentials. He filed an NLRC complaint for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of allowances (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-06-04702-06).
The Labor Arbiter (25 May 2007) ruled for Ampeloquio, awarding salary differentials, allowances, interest, 10% attorneys’ fees and moral and exemplary damages. On appeal the NLRC (Resolution, 29 November 2007) modified the award: it reduced the wage differential to P22,172.00 after noting JAKA had been granted temporary exemptions from Wage Orders Nos. 10 and 11, denied transportation reimbursement (per company policy) and removed moral/exemplary damages but allowed 10% attorneys’ fees. Ampeloquio filed a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse; the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104445 dismissed his petition, finding the NLRC’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence and correctly applying the minimum‑wage guideposts and Article 223 of the Labor Code.
Ampeloquio elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contesting (1) the reduction of his salary differential award, (2) delet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC and the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in modifying the Labor Arbiter’s award (reducing salary differential, deleting transportation allowance, and deleting moral and exemplary damages)?
- What is the scope, as to wages and benefits, of the reinstatement remedy “without loss of seniority rights and other privileges” — does it entitle the reinstated employee to the same wages and benefits as other employees (including outsourced, casual or seasonal workers) or is it limited to prev...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)