G.R. No. 157634 - Mayon Hotel and Restaurant vs. Adana

Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant is a single proprietorship registered under Pacita O. Po. Her mother, Josefa Po Lam, manages the establishment.
The enterprise employed sixteen (16) employees, all respondents in the case, hired from 1981 onwards with various job positions, including accountants, clerks, waiters, roomboys, and cooks.
The lease contract for the hotel's rented premises at Rizal Street expired and was not renewed, leading to the suspension of hotel operations on March 31, 1997.
Restaurant operations were transferred to Elizondo Street, while a new hotel was under construction at Peñaranda Street.
Only nine employees continued working at the new restaurant location; others ceased work.

Between April and May 1997, all sixteen employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, nonpayment of benefits including holiday and rest day pay, service incentive leave pay (SILP), cost of living allowance (COLA), overtime, premium pay, night shift differential, separation pay, and damages.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Joint Decision on July 14, 2000, in favor of the employees, awarding money claims and declaring illegal dismissal of some respondents—awarding separation and retirement pay accordingly. Joint Decision also held Josefa Po Lam as the owner/proprietor and proper respondent.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, dismissing all complaints for lack of evidence of illegal dismissal and other claims.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the NLRC judgment and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. The CA also upheld the finding of Josefa Po Lam as owner.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court to review CA’s decision, disputing the owner’s identity, the illegality of dismissal, liability for money claims, and damages awarded.

The CA erred in reversing the NLRC Decision, which was allegedly supported by substantial evidence.
The dismissal was not illegal but due to causes beyond their control (expiration/non-renewal of lease).
Petitioners argued that Pacita Po is the true owner as per certificate of registration and respondents’ admission, not Josefa Po Lam.
Monetary awards and damages were unproven and unjustified by evidence.
Challenges to CA’s reliance on labor arbiters’ findings focusing on supposed procedural and evidentiary errors.

Whether petitioner Josefa Po Lam is the true owner and proper respondent of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant despite the certificate of registration issued in the name of Pacita Po.
Whether respondents were illegally dismissed from their employment and thus entitled to separation and/or retirement pay.
Whether respondents are entitled to their money claims for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of holiday pay, rest day premium, SILP, COLA, overtime pay, and night shift differential pay.
Whether damages, including moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, should be awarded to the respondents.