Case Digest (G.R. No. 147420)
Facts:
Cezar Odango in His Behalf and in Behalf of 32 Complainants v. National Labor Relations Commission and Antique Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 147420, June 10, 2004, Supreme Court First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are thirty‑three monthly‑paid employees of respondent Antique Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANTECO) who worked Monday to Friday and half a Saturday. Following a DOLE inspection, the Regional Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment directed ANTECO on September 10, 1989 to pay wage differentials totaling P1,427,412.75; ANTECO did not comply.
Beginning in 1995 the employees filed consolidated complaints with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Sub‑Regional Branch VI, Iloilo City. Labor Arbiter Rodolfo G. Lagoc rendered a decision on November 29, 1996 awarding wage differentials of P1,017,507.73 and 10% attorneys’ fees (one complainant, Florentino Tongson, was dismissed). ANTECO appealed to the NLRC on December 24, 1996.
The NLRC (Commissioner Bernabe S. Batuhan, concurring) reversed the Labor Arbiter on November 27, 1997 and denied reconsideration on April 30, 1998. Petitioners sought relief in the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, which the Court initially dismissed for failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 (service by registered mail unexplained); on motion for reconsideration the Court set aside that dismissal on January 13, 1999 and, following St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, referred the case to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 51519 (Resolution of September 27, 2000, penned by Justice Umali), dismissed the petition for failure to comply with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court (failure to specify instances of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC); its denial of reconsideration followed on February 7, 2001. Petitioners filed the present petition for review under Rule 45 contesting the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and pressing entitlement to the wage differentials.
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari for insufficiency in form and substance?
- Are petitioners entitled to the claimed wage differentials based on Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code and ANTECO’s use of a 304‑day divisor?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)