Case Digest (G.R. No. 192650)
Facts:
Felix Martos, et al. v. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650, October 24, 2012, the Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are a large group of alleged former employees (more than 100 named persons, led by Felix Martos) who filed complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims against New San Jose Builders, Inc. (NSJBI), a construction company engaged in low-cost housing projects including the San Jose Plains Project (SJPP) in Montalban, Rizal. The complaints arose after petitioner NSJBI slowed or suspended work on SJPP around 2000 because of funding problems, after which some workers were laid off, others were reassigned and issued new appointment papers as “project employees,” and some allegedly refused to sign the new appointment papers and to continue working.
On March–July 2002 three separate complaints (docketed as NLRC-NCR Case Nos. 03-01639-2002; 07-04969-2002; and 07-02888-2002) by different groups of claimants were filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The three complaints were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter Facundo L. Leda. In a May 23, 2003 decision, the Labor Arbiter declared that Felix Martos was illegally dismissed and awarded him separation pay, backwages and other monetary benefits, but dismissed without prejudice the complaints/claims of most of the other complainants.
Both sides appealed to the NLRC. On July 30, 2008 the NLRC dismissed NSJBI’s appeal and partially granted the complainants’ appeal by modifying the Labor Arbiter’s decision: it ordered reinstatement of all complainants to their former positions with full backwages (counted from when their compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement) and ordered payment of salary differentials, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay, based on computations for Martos’ claims. NSJBI’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied on October 28, 2008.
NSJBI then sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in reviving complaints of many claimants who failed to verify position papers and in awarding relief to persons who either denied filing claims or withdrew them. On July 31, 2009 the CA (Third Division) reversed and set aside the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s May 23, 2003 decision, chiefly on the ground that only Martos had properly verified the position paper and certification against forum shopping and the other claimants had failed to comply with verification requirements.
Petitioners then...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss the complaints of the petitioners who failed to verify their position papers and certifications against forum shopping?
- Should Felix Martos be reinstated, or is separation pay (and other monetary awards) proper in li...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)