Case Digest (G.R. No. 224097)
Facts:
Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. and James Yu v. Carlos E. Ainza, Primo Dela Cruz, and Benjamin R. Gelicami, G.R. No. 224097, February 22, 2023, First Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Keng Hua and its president James Yu sought review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 30 September 2015 and Resolution dated 11 April 2016 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 124951) that had declared respondents Carlos Ainza, Primo Dela Cruz, and Benjamin Gelicami illegally dismissed.Respondents, long‑time employees, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayers for separation pay, underpayment, damages and attorney’s fees on 31 March 2011. The factual trigger was Typhoon Ondoy (September 2009), which petitioners say damaged equipment and halted operations; petitioners contend operations only temporarily ceased, while respondents allege they were abruptly barred from entering the plant in January 2010 and never allowed to report to superiors. The union executed a notarized agreement acknowledging Ondoy’s financial impact and a no work–no pay understanding; petitioners nevertheless renewed the CBA on 10 March 2011 and submitted comparative income statements showing activity beyond 2009.
At the Labor Arbiter (LA), the complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed on 28 October 2011 for lack of merit, but petitioners were ordered to pay separation pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA in its Decision of 6 February 2012 and denied reconsideration on 26 March 2012. Respondents filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the CA alleging grave abuse by the NLRC; the CA on 30 September 2015 reversed and set aside the NLRC, declared respondents illegally dismissed, ordered reinstatement with full backwages (or, if reinstatement infeasible, full backwages, separ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit serious error in overturning the NLRC and ruling that respondents were illegally dismissed?
- Did petitioners first raise abandonment only in their motion for recon...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)