Case Digest (G.R. No. 151378)
Facts:
Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Darwin Pacot, et al., G.R. No. 151378, promulgated March 28, 2005, Supreme Court En Banc, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.The petition arises from the termination on August 29, 1997 of respondents Darwin Pacot, Robert Parohinog, David Bisnar, Marlon Domingo, Rhoel Lescano and Jonathan Cagabcab, who had been employed by petitioner JAKA Food Processing Corporation (JAKA). JAKA dismissed them for retrenchment, but did not comply with Article 283 of the Labor Code's requirement of serving written notice on the employees and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month before the intended date of termination.
Each respondent filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of service incentive leave and 13th-month pay before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissals illegal and ordered reinstatement with full backwages (computed as of July 30, 1998 at P339,768.00) and awards for unpaid benefits, with separation pay as an alternative if reinstatement was impossible. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed that decision on August 30, 1999.
JAKA filed a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC. The NLRC, on January 28, 2000, granted reconsideration in part: it reversed and set aside the awards of backwages and service incentive leave pay, instead awarding each complainant separation pay equivalent to one month and P2,000.00 as indemnification for failure to observe due process. The NLRC denied reconsideration on April 28, 2000. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 59847).
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated November 16, 2001, reversed the NLRC's January 28, 2000 decision and ordered JAKA to pay petitioners separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, proportionate 13th-month pay, and full backwages from the date of termination until the CA decision becomes final. JAKA's motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly award full backwages to the respondents?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly award separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service to the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)