Case Digest (G.R. No. 225725)
Facts:
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Maximo C. Mamaril, et al., G.R. No. 225725, January 16, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company employed respondent Maximo C. Mamaril as a security guard on 14 November 2003; Mamaril was at one time a member of Lepanto’s Security Reaction Force (SRF), a small in‑house unit assigned sensitive duties and paid extra allowances. On 8 October 2006 Lepanto security operatives apprehended Eliseo Sumibang, Jr. with skinned copper wires; Bangkilas and Velasco prepared a spot report and joint affidavit claiming they saw Mamaril open the man door of the Tubo Collar gate and permit the removal of the wires. Lepanto investigators thereafter recommended dismissal for qualified theft/conspiracy; Lepanto’s Legal Office issued a resolution dated 4 November 2006 dismissing Mamaril for dishonesty and breach of trust and confidence.
Mamaril filed for illegal dismissal with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch–CAR (docketed NLRC RAB‑CAR 11‑0685‑06); several other SRF members filed separate complaints (RAB‑CAR 03‑0126‑07 and 05‑0219‑07) for unpaid overtime, rest day and holiday pay arising notably from duties during a strike from 2 June to 11 September 2005. The Labor Arbiter, in a Joint Decision dated 4 March 2008, dismissed the complaints and upheld the dismissal of Mamaril, crediting the identifications by Bangkilas and Velasco and finding the overtime claims unproven. The NLRC, however, in a Resolution dated 8 January 2010 partially granted the appeal: it held Mamaril’s dismissal was without just cause and awarded him separation pay and backwages, while denying most monetary claims of the other guards. After motions for reconsideration, the NLRC in a Resolution dated 13 August 2010 modified its ruling and ordered Lepanto to pay overtime, rest‑day and holiday pay to several security guards.
Petitioner moved for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals; the CA in CA‑G.R. SP No. 116677 issued a Decision dated 21 October 2015 affirming the NLRC’s determinations (specifically that Mamaril’s dismissal lacked just cause and that several privat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the CA commit reversible error in holding that Maximo C. Mamaril was dismissed without just and valid cause and is therefore entitled to separation pay and full backwages?
- Did the CA commit reversible error in holding that Mamaril and the other respondents are entitled to compensation for overtime, h...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)