Case Digest (G.R. No. 105892)
Facts:
Leiden Fernandez, Brenda Gadiano, Gloria Adriano, Emelia Negapatan, Jesus Tomongha, Eleonor Quinanola, Asteria Campo, Florida Villaceran, Florida Talledo, Marilyn Lim and Joseph Canonigo v. National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division; Marguerite Lhuillier and/or Agencia Cebuana-H. Lhuillier, G.R. No. 105892, January 28, 1998, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are former employees of Agencia Cebuana‑H. Lhuillier, a sole proprietorship owned by Marguerite (Margueritte) Lhuillier. They filed consolidated complaints for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch VII. The labor arbiter found in favor of the complainants, ordered reinstatement (or separation pay if reinstatement was infeasible), awarded full backwages, service incentive leave pay, P100,000.00 moral and P100,000.00 exemplary damages per complainant, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, and required deposit of the total award of P1,078,200.55 (Labor Arbiter Decision).
Respondent NLRC (Fourth Division) reversed and vacated the labor arbiter’s decision and remanded the cases to the Regional Arbitration Branch for further proceedings, concluding that the labor arbiter prematurely considered the case submitted for decision after counsel’s nonappearance at hearings on July 8 and 12, 1991 and that private respondent had been denied due process. The NLRC further entertained additional affidavits filed later by private respondent. The NLRC’s March 11, 1992 Decision and its May 29, 1992 Resolution denying reconsideration were then assailed by the petitioners.
Factual background: petitioners averred they were summarily told not to report to work on July 19–20, 1990 and thereafter filed complaints on July 23, 1990. Private respondent alleged various causes (investigations for alleged overdeclaration, theft/estafa, or voluntary resignations accompanied by promissory notes) and argued that the employees abandoned their employment or resigned. At the labor arbiter level, hearings were scheduled for July 5, 8 and 12, 1991; counsel for private respondent failed to appear on July 8 and July 12, 1991. The labor arbiter admitted complainants’ exhibits, considered the case submitted, and rendered decision. Private respondent later filed motions and offered additional affidavits (some filed October ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC acquire jurisdiction over private respondent’s appeal despite the alleged insufficiency of the appeal bond posted?
- Were private respondents denied due process by the labor arbiter when the case was submitted for resolution after counsel’s nonappearance at hearings on July 8 and 12, 1991?
- Were the petitioners (the nine remaining complainants) illegally dismissed?
- Did petitioners Marilyn Lim and Joseph Canonigo voluntarily resign, thereby forfeiting claims for reinstatement and backwages?
- Is the award of service incentive leave pay and backwages subject to a three‑year limitation or other restriction; and are moral damages and attorneys’ fees prope...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)