Case Digest (G.R. No. 174209)
Facts:
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Rizalina Raut, Leila Emnace and Gina Capistrano, G.R. No. 174209, August 25, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.On December 17, 1996, Rizalina Raut and Leila Emnace filed a complaint against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits; Gina Capistrano filed a similar suit on January 18, 1997. The Labor Arbiter consolidated the cases on February 25, 1997 and, in a decision promulgated July 30, 1997, ordered reinstatement of the respondents (or placement in an equivalent position) and awarded backwages totaling P99,330.00, subject to recomputation.
The respondents were reinstated on December 16, 1998, but allegedly remained treated as temporary employees. PLDT appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), contending the respondents were employees of an independent contractor (Peerless Integrated Services, Inc.). On April 30, 1998 the NLRC affirmed with modification and added awards for overtime, night shift differential, service incentive leave and 13th month pay; a motion for reconsideration was denied on September 25, 1998.
PLDT sought certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which on September 24, 1999 affirmed the NLRC decision with a further modification regarding deduction of certain 13th month pay periods; a motion for reconsideration was denied and judgment became final and executory on March 26, 2000. On April 24, 2002 respondents moved for issuance of a writ of execution; the Labor Arbiter issued an order dated June 21, 2002 directing issuance of a writ to enforce awards (totaling P1,063,606.00 as reflected in the arbiter's order).
PLDT filed a Memorandum of Appeal to the NLRC from the order of execution, which the NLRC dismissed for failure to attach the required Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping (per Rule VI, Section 4 of the NLRC Rules). PLDT then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse; the CA denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC resolutions. PLDT elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the NLRC correct in dismissing PLDT’s Memorandum of Appeal for failure to attach a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping (a procedural issue)?
- Was the Labor Arbiter’s June 21, 2002 order of execution null and void for increasing the monetary award or failing to properly order reinstatement ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)