Case Digest (G.R. No. 113337)
Facts:
Manlimos et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Super Mahogany Plywood Corporation/Albert Go, G.R. No. 113337, March 02, 1995, First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioners were regular employees of Super Mahogany Plywood Corporation occupying jobs such as patchers, taper-graders, and receivers-dryers. On 1 September 1991 a new ownership/management group headed by Alfredo Roxas acquired the corporation. The petitioners were informed but continued working until December 1991, when they received separation pay, 13th month pay and other benefits computed as of that month and each executed on 17 December 1991 a Release and Waiver before a DOLE hearing officer.
On 27 December 1991 the new owner published a hiring notice identifying which separated employees could be rehired on probation. The petitioners (except Rosario Cuarto) applied and were rehired on six-month probationary terms paid on a piece-rate basis. Two petitioners, Perla Cumpay and Virginia Etic, were considered to have abandoned their work and were dismissed effective 4 May 1992; the remainder were dismissed on 13 June 1992 for allegedly submitting unrepaired/untaped work, with the effectivity of those dismissals deferred to 20 June 1992.
Groups of petitioners filed complaints before the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch (NLRC SRAB No. X) alleging illegal termination, nonpayment/underpayment of wages, entitlement to reinstatement with back wages and other reliefs; the complaints were amended and consolidated. The employer answered and the parties submitted position papers. Labor Arbiter Marissa Macaraig‑Guillen rendered judgment on 30 April 1993 declaring the dismissals illegal, ordering reinstatement without loss of seniority and awarding back wages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and attorney’s fees (P542,150.40), reasoning that there was no bona fide cessation of operations and that the petitioners were regular employees (relying on the requisites in Mobil Employees Association v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 737).
The employer appealed to the NLRC (Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro). In its 2 August 1993 resolution the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter except as to the 13th month pay (to be recomputed), finding the change of ownership bona fide, distinguishing Mobil, and holding that a bona fide transferee need not absorb the transferor’s employees and may validly hire on probationary basis; it thus sustained the new management’s probationary hirings. The NLRC denied reconsideration in its 14 October 1993 resolution.
The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorar...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision?
- Was the change of ownership tantamount to a cessation of business such that the petitioners remained regular employees entitled to reinstatement and other reliefs despite receipt of separation pay and execution of releases?
- Were the petitioners who were rehired on six‑month probationary terms entitled to reinstatement and back wages after their separation, or did the expiration of the probationary period render reinstatement infeasible?
- Were Perla Cumpay and Virginia Etic validly dismissed for ab...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)