Case Digest (G.R. No. 145402)
Facts:
Meralco Industrial Engineering Services Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, Ofelia P. Landrito General Services and/of Ofelia P. Landrito, G.R. No. 145402, March 14, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is Meralco Industrial Engineering Services Corporation (MIESCOR). Respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Ofelia P. Landrito General Services (OPLGS) and its proprietor Ofelia P. Landrito. The dispute arises from claims filed by 49 janitorial employees (the complainants) originally employed by OPLGS and assigned to petitioner’s Rockwell Thermal Plant under Contract Order No. 166‑84 executed on November 7, 1984.
On September 20, 1989 the 49 employees filed a complaint (NLRC NCR Case No. 00‑09‑04432‑89) against OPLGS for illegal deduction, underpayment, unpaid overtime, holiday premiums and night differentials. The service contract was amended on November 3, 1989 to reflect minimum wage increases under Republic Act No. 6727. Petitioner notified OPLGS on January 2, 1990 that the contract would terminate effective January 31, 1990; the employees were pulled out that day and on February 27, 1990 amended their complaint to add illegal dismissal and implead petitioner.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on March 26, 1991 dismissing the complaint against petitioner but ordering OPLGS to pay a total of P487,287.07 (unpaid wages, separation pay, overtime) plus 10% attorney’s fees. OPLGS appealed to the NLRC. On May 28, 1993 the NLRC affirmed the Arbiter’s decision but held petitioner solidarily liable with OPLGS “for purposes of determining the extent of its liability” under Articles 107 and 109 of the Labor Code; both parties sought reconsideration. The NLRC on July 30, 1993 directed enforcement against a surety bond posted by OPLGS and ordered the Labor Arbiter to determine who should finally shoulder the award.
OPLGS filed a petition for certiorari with this Court (G.R. No. 111506) challenging the NLRC’s May 28, 1993 Resolution; this Court dismissed that petition by resolution dated May 23, 1994, final July 25, 1994. Proceedings resumed and the Labor Arbiter on October 5, 1994 clarified that petitioner was jointly and severally liable only for underpayment and overtime awards, while the separation pay award was the sole liability of OPLGS; the Arbiter allowed reimbursement rights in certain circumstances and ordered issuance of an alias writ of execution.
Both parties appealed; the NLRC initially dismissed the appeals on April 25, 1995 but subsequently (July 27, 1995) set aside that resolution and required posting of appeal bonds, which both parties posted. The NLRC then issued a Decision dated January 30, 1996 modifying the Arbiter’s order by holding petitioner jointly and severally liable for the underpayment and overtime awards and directing that the Arbiter satisfy those awards, “as well as that of the separation pay,” exclusively through OPLGS’s surety bond. OPLGS’s motion for reconsideration was denied on October 30, 1996 (final November 29, 1996).
OPLGS filed certiorari with this Court (docketed and later referred to the Court of Appeals per St. Martin Funeral Home), and the case went to the Court of Appeals as CA‑G.R. SP No. 50806. The Court of Appeals on April 24,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals palpably err in going beyond the issues and modifying factual findings that had attained finality (law of the case)?
- Is petitioner jointly and severally liable with OPLGS for the complainants’ s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)