Title
Evangelista vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 93915
Decision Date
Oct 11, 1995
The Supreme Court mandates that backwages for an employee must be calculated using the wage levels at the time of dismissal in 1977, without deductions.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 93915)

Facts:

  • The case involves Augusto Evangelista (petitioner) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Arturo Mendoza (respondents).
  • In April 1977, Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Evangelista.
  • The case progressed through various legal channels and reached the Supreme Court on July 30, 1990, via a petition for certiorari.
  • On March 22, 1991, the Supreme Court ruled Mendoza's dismissal as illegal.
  • The decision became final after the Court denied Evangelista's motion for reconsideration on May 13, 1991.
  • Mendoza filed a motion for clarification regarding the salary scale for computing three years of backwages, citing De Jesus vs. Philippine National Construction Corporation.
  • On July 24, 1991, the Supreme Court modified its earlier decision, stating backwages should be based on current wage levels.
  • Evangelista filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming he was not notified of Mendoza's motion and was deprived of due process.
  • He argued that backwages should be computed based on the wage level at the time of Mendoza's dismissal in 1977.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner's claim of being deprived of due process and granted the motion for reconsideration.
  • The Court ruled that backwages should be computed based on the wage levels prevailing at the time of Mendoz...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of due process in judicial proceedings, particularly the right to be informed and respond to motions affecting a party's rights.
  • The Court referenced Paramount Vinyl Products Corp. vs. NLRC, ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.