Case Digest (G.R. No. 121288)
Facts:
Rolando Dela Cruz v. National Labor Relations Commission and Emmanuel Lo, G.R. No. 121288, November 20, 1998, Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On 5 September 1991, petitioner Rolando Dela Cruz filed a complaint before Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. 6 (Iloilo City) alleging, among others, illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, underpayment of salary, and claims for overtime, holiday and premium pay, commissions, and separation pay against private respondent Emmanuel Lo (SRAB Case No. 06-09-50298-91). Respondent filed an answer on 9 October 1991; the parties submitted position papers in November 1991.
Labor Arbiter Dennis D. Juanon rendered a decision on 7 August 1992 dismissing the complaint for lack of employer-employee relationship. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC on 9 September 1992 (NLRC Case No. V-0254-92). In a Resolution dated 22 October 1992, the NLRC granted the appeal and remanded the case for appropriate proceedings. Labor Arbiter Juanon inhibited himself and the matter was reassigned to Labor Arbiter Rodolfo G. Lagoc.
Labor Arbiter Lagoc, in a decision promulgated 15 February 1994, found an employer-employee relationship and held that petitioner was illegally dismissed; he awarded separation pay of P4,628.00 but dismissed the other monetary claims (including unfair labor practice and various wage claims) mainly on the ground that petitioner was a managerial employee and thus excluded from coverage of Book III of the Labor Code. Both parties filed appeals to the NLRC.
The NLRC, in a Decision dated 17 March 1995, dismissed both appeals for lack of merit. The NLRC refused to award reinstatement and back wages on the ground that petitioner had only sought separation pay in his complaint and relied on Section 3, Rule V of the NLRC Rules to bar reliefs not pleaded. Petitioner and respondent moved for reconsideration; the NLRC denied the motions in a Resolution dated 19 May 1995.
Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in denying back wages and other monetary reliefs. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation recommending that back wages be awarded pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code and relevant jurisprudence. The NLRC failed to file a substantive comment; privat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by refusing to award back wages and other monetary reliefs on the ground that petitioner did not pray for back wages in his complaint?
- Was petitioner a managerial employee excluded from the coverage of Book III of the Labor Code and therefore not entitled to overtime, holiday and related monetary claims?
- Having found illegal dismissal, was petitioner entitled to reinstatement or separation pay, and how sho...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)