Case Digest (G.R. No. 227038)
Facts:
Edilberto P. Etom, Jr. v. Aroma Lodging House through Eduardo G. Lem, G.R. No. 192955, November 09, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Edilberto Etom (employee) filed a complaint on April 15, 2008 for illegal dismissal and money claims against Aroma Lodging House (respondent), a lodging business, alleging continuous employment as a roomboy since 1997 with a monthly salary of P2,500 and workdays from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, including holidays; he claimed respondent refused to allow him to report for work on February 4, 2008 without notice or opportunity to explain. Respondent maintained it employed Etom since 2000, paid above-minimum wages and benefits (holiday pay, 13th month pay, overtime, free meals, stay-in, tips, commissions), and alleged repeated disciplinary problems including assaults and threats with a knife, and that it served but Etom refused to receive a memorandum requiring explanation, leading to termination for serious misconduct.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) Eduardo G. Magno, in NLRC NCR No. 04-05453-08, rendered an August 20, 2008 decision finding Etom legally dismissed but awarded him P10,000 punitive damages for lack of termination notice, salary differential (P199,482.80), holiday pay (P3,107.50) and 13th month pay (P7,150.00). Respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which, in NLRC LAC No. 09-003303-08, issued an April 30, 2009 Decision affirming the LA but deleting punitive damages and ordering salary differential of P166,080.38 (for three years, less 10% for facilities), 13th month and holiday pay; the NLRC denied reconsideration on June 30, 2009.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) — CA-G.R. SP No. 110901 — contending (inter alia) that its motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was timely, that petitioner had earlier executed a notarized joint affidavit admitting receipt of wages above minimum, and that the establishment was exempt from the Minimum Wage Law for having ten or fewer employees. The CA, by Decision dated January 21, 2010, granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, reversed and set aside the NLRC awards for unpaid wages, 13th month pay and holiday pay, finding the motion for reconsideration timely and treating the notarized affidavit as an admission against interest; the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 2, 2010.
Petitioner thus filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (Rule 45), assailing the CA’s ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC timely filed such that the CA erred in finding it timely?
- Did the CA correctly overturn the NLRC’s factual findings that respondent failed to pay petitioner minimum wages, 13th month pay and holiday pay, given the notarized joint affidavit and other evidence?
- Was petitioner denied due process because the CA did not afford him the opportunity to file a reply or memora...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)