G.R. No. 20 - Ling Su Fan vs. United States

E.G. & I. Construction Corporation hired Ananias P. Sato in October 1990 as a grader operator, a technical labor position which he held for more than thirteen years.
E.G. & I. Construction Corporation hired Nilo Berdin in March 1991 as a steelman/laborer, Anecito S. Parantar, Sr. in February 1997 as a steelman, and Romeo M. Lacida, Jr. in March 2001 as a laborer.
At the start of their employment, respondents were required to sign several documents purported to be employment contracts, which they signed without verifying contents for fear of losing employment.
Respondents worked from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., devoted their time exclusively to petitioners, and were assigned to various construction projects performing tasks such as setting up steel bars, mixing cement, and other required duties.

In April 2004, Sato discovered that petitioners had not been remitting his SSS premium contributions and repeatedly asked petitioners to update his contributions.
Petitioners removed Sato as grader operator and assigned him to manual labor such as tilling cemetery land and digging earthworks.
An SSS inspection team visited petitioners in July 2004. On July 22, 2004, petitioners told Sato they could no longer afford his wages and advised him to seek other employment.
Sato claimed difficulty finding employment thereafter because he had been blacklisted and was prevented from entering petitioners' project sites.
On July 24, 2004, the project engineer instructed Berdin, Parantar, and Lacida to sign various documents written in English; they refused because they did not understand English and were terminated that day.
The three were paid weekly wages on July 24, 2004, but with deductions equivalent to three days as penalty for refusal to sign; they were barred from entering the work premises the following day.
On July 26, 2004, the respondents filed complaints with the Regional Arbitration Branch of Cebu City for illegal dismissal, wage differentials (underpayment), holiday pay, thirteenth month pay, and service incentive leave pay.

Petitioners admitted employment but denied illegal dismissal, alleging respondents abandoned work by failing to report starting July 22, 2004.
Petitioners claimed they sent letters advising respondents to return to work; respondents refused and were allegedly still welcome to resume work.
As to Sato, petitioners alleged admonishment for an illicit affair, retaliation by complaining to SSS, substandard work, unexplained absences, and habitual tardiness.

Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon found respondents were illegally dismissed.
In lieu of reinstatement, each respondent was granted separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, per respondents' prayer and strained relations.
The Labor Arbiter awarded wage differentials, 13th month pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay, because petitioners failed to present proof of payment such as payrolls or vouchers.
Dispositive monetary awards were: Ananias P. Sato — P107,250.00; Anecito Parantar — P120,944.00; Nilo Berdin — P152,144.00; Romeo M. Lacida, Jr. — P138,594.00; total P518,932.00. Other claims and case against Edsel Galeos were dismissed.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter decision and dismissed the case.
The NLRC nevertheless ordered payment of proportionate 13th month pay for 2004: Sato P3,180.00; Parantar P2,520.00; Berdin P2,700.00; Laceda P2,520.00; total P10,920.00.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the Labor Arbiter decision that respondents were illegally terminated by petitioners and entitled to separation pay and monetary claims.
Whether petitioners met the burden to prove just or authorized cause for termination or that respondents abandoned employment.
Whether pe...(Subscriber-Only)