Case Digest (G.R. No. 54223)
Facts:
Baby Bus Inc. v. The Hon. Minister of Labor and Jacinto Mangalino, G.R. No. 54223, February 26, 1988, the Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Baby Bus Inc. (the company) employed Jacinto Mangalino as an over-all inspector from June 1972, at P8.00 a day. Sometime in April 1975 Mangalino suffered a stroke and was hospitalized; he returned to work but suffered further strokes and was rendered unfit to report for work in May 1975. Mangalino filed a complaint on September 13, 1976 with Regional Office No. IV of the Department of Labor alleging illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime, unpaid wages, and violation of P.D. No. 525 (emergency living allowance).
At compulsory arbitration the parties were directed to submit position papers and affidavits. Mangalino filed his affidavit and that of a witness and submitted documentary exhibits; the company filed a position paper but failed to present witnesses or evidence because its counsel did not appear at three scheduled hearings despite due notice. The Labor Arbiter considered the case submitted on the record, found the factual allegations established, and ordered Baby Bus to pay separation pay (one month per year of service) and emergency allowances at P30.00 a month from August 1, 1974 to May 1975.
On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the award, ordering separation pay equal to one and one-half months’ pay, emergency allowance of P30.00 per month from August 1974 until cessation of work, and overtime pay for five hours a day, six days a week for the period actually worked. Baby Bus appealed to the Minister of Labor, who affirmed the NLRC in an order dated May 23, 1980. Baby Bus filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court; it also sought a temporary restraining order, and the Court issued a TRO on August 27, 1980 enjoining enforcement of the Minister’s order. Baby Bus’s motion for reconsideration before the Labor Arbiter had been denied.
The company’s sole assignment of error was that the Minister acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC decision, arguing (1) that there was a finding of no illegal dismissal and thus no basis for separation pay, and (2) that Mangalino ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Minister of Labor commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC decision?
- May separation pay under Article 285, Labor Code, be awarded where there was no finding of illegal dismissal and did Mangalino’s illness fall within Article 285?
- Were the awards for emergency living allowance under P.D. No. 525 and for overtime pay suppo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)