G.R. No. 121696 - C. Planas Commercial vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioners: C. Planas Commercial and its manager, Marcial Cohu.
Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Ramil de los Reyes, a former employee.
Nature of the dispute: Alleged illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and other monetary benefits.

Ramil de los Reyes was employed by PLANAS starting in August 1988 as a deliveryman and later tasked with selling fruits.
His daily wage initially was P50.00 and was later increased to P100.00.
de los Reyes claimed that he worked fourteen (14) hours a day, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., without overtime, night shift differential, holiday/rest day premium, and was entitled to 13th month pay from 1988 to 1993.
He alleged that his dismissal on 4 June 1993 was done without any written notice, which is required by law.

Found that petitioners had illegally dismissed de los Reyes.
Ordered his immediate reinstatement with back wages and other monetary benefits including salary differentials, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay.

Set aside the finding of illegal dismissal.
Upheld and sustained the award of salary differentials amounting to P36,342.80 while nullifying the other monetary benefits and reinstatement order.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari on 18 December 1995 seeking review of the NLRC’s decision, particularly contesting the award of salary differentials.
Petitioners argued that the evidence showed de los Reyes had abandoned his job after a confrontation by Manager Cohu, and further invoked statutory exemption claimed available for retail establishments with less than ten (10) workers.
The petition also sought a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the execution of the NLRC monetary award pending review.

He was dismissed without proper notice after complaining about his low salary.
His dismissal was part of a broader pattern allegedly leading to several labor complaints by co-employees.

de los Reyes abandoned his job after being confronted over reports of overcharging and pocketing the difference.
Their business operation as a small retail establishment with limited employees exempted them from certain wage and benefit obligations.
They presented photographs showing de los Reyes working at another stall to support the claim of abandonment.

The Labor Arbiter rejected the abandonment claim, reasoning that it was illogical for an abandoned worker to then seek reinstatement through the labor tribunal.
The NLRC, however, based on pictorial evidence and other records, held that de los Reyes had abandoned his job but still awarded salary differentials due to underpayment of wages.

The employer failed to produce employment records or payrolls to rebut de los Reyes’ claims regarding his compensation and work hours.
The matter of the number of employees (whether around thirty or less than ten) was raised by both parties, affecting the application of the exemption clause under RA 6727.
Petitioners’ inability to provide approved exemption documentation from the Regional Board undermined their statutory defense.
The factual record included:

Manager Cohu’s allegation regarding de los Reyes’ overpricing.
Pictorial evidence of de los Reyes working for another employer supporting the abandonment theory.
Contradictory accounts, with de los Reyes having earlier sought reinstatement from the Labor Tribunal.

Whether Ramil de los Reyes was illegally dismissed or voluntarily abandoned his job.

The determination hinges on whether the conduct of de los Reyes—continuing to claim illegal dismissal while presenting before the Labor Tribunal—constitutes abandonment.
The evidentiary basis: testimonies, photographs, and the alleged confrontation by Manager Cohu over overpricing claims.

Whether petitioners are liable for the award of salary differentials, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay.

The issue includes the applicability of the Wage Rationalization Act (RA 6727), the Rules Implementing Wage Orders, and the exemption clause for retail establishments employing fewer than ten workers.
The dispute involves reconciling conflicting factual records (i.e., the actual number of employees) and evaluating whether petitioners substantiated their claim for exemption.

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the award of salary differentials despite the exemption argument.
The scope of judicial review concerning findings based on substantial evidence and the extent of deference granted to labor tribunal decisions.