Case Digest (G.R. No. 250987)
Facts:
Noel G. Guinto v. Sto. Nino Long‑Zeny Consignee, Angelo Salangsang, and Zenaida Salangsang, G.R. No. 250987, March 29, 2022, First Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Noel G. Guinto filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on February 6, 2017 against Sto. Nino Long‑Zeny Consignee (the Consignee), its owner Angelo Salangsang, and his wife/manager Zenaida Salangsang. The complaint was later amended to include claims for nonpayment of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay. Petitioner alleged employment since August 1997 as a warehouseman and later a "sizer" and recounted that on November 27, 2015 Zenaida told him to leave and not report for work, followed by a text message the next day directing him not to return.At the Labor Arbiter (LA), petitioner submitted a certification by Angelo stating employment since 1997, a posted work schedule, payslips, affidavits of porters and a dispatcher, and an affidavit attesting he was not part of the porters' association. Respondents denied an employer‑employee relationship, maintaining petitioner was a porter/sizer affiliated with the fishport rather than their regular employee; they submitted affidavits and business permit applications showing only two regular employees. The LA (Decision dated October 18, 2017) found petitioner a regular employee and illegally dismissed, awarding backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees; respondents appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC (Decision dated May 2, 2018) agreed petitioner was a regular employee but reversed the LA on illegal dismissal, finding petitioner failed to prove he was dismissed; it ordered reinstatement without backwages, deleted separation and 13th month pay awards, but retained service incentive leave pay and 10% attorney’s fees. The NLRC denied reconsideration (Resolution June 20, 2018). Petitioner filed a petition for certior...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to find grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC when it held that petitioner was not illegally dismissed?
- Did the CA err in upholding the NLRC’s denial of petitioner's claims for 13th month pay and for separation pay in lie...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)