G.R. No. 141181 - Ching vs. Nicdao

In February 2005, petitioner Remegio E. Burnea was hired by respondents-spouses Jose T. Ching and Esperanza R. Ching, who operated through their company, Security Trading Corporation (STC), a domestic corporation engaged in construction, equipment, materials, and supplies.
Initially appointed as a construction worker, petitioner later became a stay-in security guard of STC’s premises, receiving a monthly salary of P8,500.00.

On March 1, 2010, petitioner was transferred to Far Eastern Knitting Corporation (Far Eastern), a company also owned by spouses Ching, with the primary role of safeguarding the company’s property.
In view of the trust placed in him, petitioner was issued an Authority to Sell Far Eastern’s property.

Following the eventual sale of Far Eastern’s property to Nonpareil International Freight and Cargo Services, Inc. on November 15, 2013, petitioner received his commission but did not receive his salary for the period of November 1–15, 2013.
He was purportedly informed by Far Eastern’s management that his services were no longer needed and was advised to return to his province.

On September 25, 2014, petitioner filed a SENA Complaint before the Regional Conciliation and Mediation Board, alleging various causes of action, including non-payment/underpayment of wages, overtime pay, night shift differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay, statutory contributions, illegal dismissal, separation pay, and other labor standard benefits.
The SENA Complaint was later terminated when petitioner filed a similar complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No. 11-13578-14, now omitting a specific cause of action for illegal dismissal even though his position paper later argued for it.
Nonpareil denied having an employer-employee relationship with petitioner, contending that it was merely related to the purchase of Far Eastern’s property, while Far Eastern did not participate in the proceedings.

In its Decision dated March 27, 2015, the LA partially ruled in petitioner’s favor by awarding salary differentials, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay for the period from November 3, 2011 up to his alleged dismissal on November 17, 2013, amounting to P75,576.38, subject to a three-year prescriptive period.
The LA dismissed other claims—including those for 13th month pay, overtime pay, night shift differential, holiday premium, rest day premium, statutory contributions, separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees—either due to failure to prove entitlement, lack of discussion in the position paper, or because the claims were not raised in the NLRC complaint.

The NLRC, in its Decision dated September 29, 2015, affirmed the LA ruling, noting that claims for 13th month pay, overtime pay, holiday premium, night shift differential, and those stemming from illegal dismissal were not properly substantiated or raised in the complaint.
The CA, in its Decision dated December 2, 2016, affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, holding that the laboratory tribunals did not gravely abuse their discretion in dismissing claims that were not raised in petitioner’s NLRC complaint.
A motion for reconsideration by petitioner was denied in a Resolution dated April 10, 2017, prompting the elevation of the matter via petition for review on certiorari.

Whether petitioner sufficiently proved his entitlement to money claims for 13th month pay, overtime pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, and night shift differential.

Whether the NLRC and the labor tribunals rightly precluded the issue of illegal dismissal—and consequently, the claims for separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees—because illegal dismissal was not raised in the NLRC complaint, in line with the provisions of Section 12, Rule V of the 2011 NLRC Rules.

Whether the limitations imposed by the position paper (namely, that it should only address claims and causes of action stated in the complaint) justifiably prevented the consideration of the petitioner’s arguments regarding illegal dismissal.