Case Digest (G.R. No. 118432)
Facts:
Conrado Cosico, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Eva Airways Corporation, Lewis Chang, and Allen Soong, G.R. No. 118432, May 23, 1997, Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Conrado Cosico, Jr. was hired on April 4, 1992 by Eva Airways Corporation through its general sales agent as Assistant Station Manager in Manila for a monthly salary of P30,000. As Assistant Station Manager he supervised the establishment of Eva Air’s Manila office at NAIA and was charged with meeting the company’s passenger-load targets. After five months an audit showed only about twenty-five passengers per flight against a target of sixty, and management decided to make the Manila station cost-efficient by abolishing the Assistant Station Manager position and keeping the Station Manager post vacant.
On September 24, 1992 petitioner received written notice that his position was abolished and that his services would be terminated fifteen days after receipt; Eva Air offered separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary plus proportionate 13th month pay for his six months and eleven days of service. Petitioner rejected the offer and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and moral and exemplary damages against Eva Air, Lewis Chang, and Allen Soong before the Labor Arbiter (docketed NLRC NCR Case No. 00-10-05891-92).
On June 9, 1993 Labor Arbiter Ernesto Dinopal rendered a decision declaring petitioner’s dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement without loss of seniority, and awarding backwages, 13th month pay, P1,000,000 moral damages, P1,000,000 exemplary damages, and 10% attorney’s fees; Allen Soong was absolved of liability. Eva Air and Chang appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), filed an appeal memorandum and posted a supersedeas bond of P270,000; petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to post a bond equivalent to the total monetary award including moral/exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The NLRC: (Second Division) denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and, in an August 31, 1994 resolution, gave due course to the appeal, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and ordered respondents to pay separation benefits equivalent to one month per year of service and 13th month pay for 1992. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by NLRC on December 15, 1994. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in (1) giving due course to an imperfect appeal for inadequate supersedeas bond, (2) setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, (3) finding that petitioner’s position was duly abolished, and (4) denying damages.
The present peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion by giving due course to respondents’ appeal despite an allegedly insufficient supersedeas bond?
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruling that petitioner was not illegally dismissed?
- Was the abolition of petitioner’s Assistant Station Manager position a valid exercise of management prerogative, and is petitioner ent...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)