G.R. No. 113337 - Manlimos vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Case Digest (G.R. No. 113337)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Overview of the Case

A special civil action for certiorari was filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by a group of petitioners against the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The petition sought to set aside the NLRC resolutions of 2 August 1993 and 14 October 1993, which reversed a favorable decision by the Labor Arbiter dated 30 April 1993.

Parties Involved

Petitioners:

Ronald Manlimos
Froilan Pagalan
Merlita Duhay Lungsod
Elizabeth Andagan
Doris Serdan
Leonora Bibiano
Perla Cumpay
Virginia Etic
Remegia Noel
Rosario Cuarto
Ronald Booc
Jaime Timbal
German Gista
Federico Amper
Francisco Evale
Renante Yacapin

Respondents:

National Labor Relations Commission (public respondent)
Super Mahogany Plywood Corporation/Albert Go (private respondent)
The new management led by Alfredo Roxas following a change in ownership.

Employment Background and Change in Corporate Ownership

The petitioners were regular employees of Super Mahogany Plywood Corporation, hired in various capacities (patchers, taper-graders, receivers-dryers).
On 1 September 1991, the corporation underwent a change of ownership when a new management group headed by Alfredo Roxas acquired complete control.
Although the petitioners were informed of the change, they continued working for the new management until their separation.
In December 1991, with the issuance of separation pay and other benefits, the petitioners were deemed terminated.
On 17 December 1991, each petitioner executed a Release and Waiver before a designated DOLE hearing officer, thereby acknowledging their separation.

Re-employment and Subsequent Dismissals

On 27 December 1991, the new management published a notice inviting applications for re-employment on a probationary basis.
Except for Rosario Cuarto, the petitioners applied and were hired on probationary contracts (with task- or piece-rate compensation).
Instances of dismissal:

Perla Cumpay and Virginia Etic were considered to have abandoned their work as of 4 May 1992 due to alleged unexplained absences.
Other petitioners were dismissed on 13 June 1992 on the ground that they committed acts prejudicial to the interests of the new management, with the effective date of termination deferred to 20 June 1992 after an appeal.

Filing of Complaints and Proceedings Before the NLRC

Two separate complaints were filed with the NLRC’s Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch in Butuan City:

One complaint for non-payment and underpayment of wages, overtime pay, 13th month pay, separation pay, reinstatement with back wages, and damages.
A second complaint for illegal termination and other employment-related claims.

The complaints were later amended and consolidated.
The private respondent submitted its answer, and both parties later presented position papers.

Labor Arbiter’s Ruling and Subsequent Developments

The Labor Arbiter ruled on 30 April 1993 in favor of the petitioners, declaring their dismissals illegal and ordering:

Reinstatement without the loss of seniority rights and privileges.
Payment of back wages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees amounting to P542,150.40.

The Labor Arbiter’s reasoning included:

The change of ownership did not amount to an actual cessation of business operations.
The petitioners, by re-entering employment in January 1992, resumed their status as regular employees.
The irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioners were not proven.

The private respondent, disagreeing with the Labor Arbiter’s decision, appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC, on 2 August 1993, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision (except for the claim on 13th month pay, subject to recomputation) and subsequently denied the petitioners’ motion to reconsider on 14 October 1993.

Petitioners’ Arguments versus Private Respondent’s Position

Petitioners maintained:

Their execution of the Release and Waiver did not bar them from contesting the legality of their termination.
The previous management’s action of providing separation benefits was insufficient to conclude that they were no longer entitled to contest their dismissal.
As regular employees, their dismissal without just cause and due process was illegal.

The private respondent argued:

The petitioners were terminated legally, evidenced by the Release and Waiver and subsequent re-application for re-employment.
Hiring on a probationary basis falls under management’s exclusive prerogative, and the dismissals were not otherwise unlawful.

Issues:

Validity and Effect of the Release and Waiver

Was the petitioners’ execution and acceptance of the Release and Waiver conclusive in barring their claims, given the argument that consideration was inadequate and contrary to public policy?

Legality of the Terminations

Whether the petitioners’ termination, in light of the change in corporate ownership and their re-employment on probationary basis, constitutes illegal dismissal.
Whether the dismissals were effected without due process, particularly with reference to the instances involving alleged absenteeism and acts prejudicial to the management’s interests.

The Applicability of Precedents and the Proper Standard

Whether the Labor Arbiter erred in relying on the precedent (Mobil Employees Association vs. National Labor Relations Commission) by analogizing a change in corporate ownership to a cessation of business operations.
Whether the NLRC was justified in reversing the favorable decision of the Labor Arbiter based on the distinct factual and legal circumstances in this case.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 113337) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 113337) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 113337)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 113337)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model