Case Digest (G.R. No. 163775)
Facts:
Oscar G. Sapitan, et al. v. JB Line Bicol Express, Inc., Lao Huan Ling, and Jose Baritua, G.R. No. 163775, October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court First Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are a group of former employees (mostly drivers, conductors and mechanics) of JB Line Bicol Express, Inc. who filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Legazpi City for constructive/illegal dismissal and claims for unpaid wages, overtime, night shift differential, 13th month pay, separation pay and damages. They alleged long service (many for ten to twenty years), membership in the ABC labor union, an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and a practice beginning about year 2000 of being prevented from performing work (told not to report due to buses being "not serviceable"), resulting in diminution of pay and effectively rendering continued employment impossible.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) Jose C. Del Valle issued a decision dated August 24, 2001 finding that most petitioners were constructively dismissed because of reduced trips and shortened workdays that diminished pay and made continued employment impossible; the LA granted substantive monetary awards (including separation pay, wage differential, 13th month and night shift differential) but found a limited group of employees validly dismissed for just cause and one claim barred by prescription. The LA noted the 1999 CBA’s clause providing separation pay of 24 days per year as the remedy when termination is due to reduction in workforce.
Respondent JB Line, represented by its owners Lao Huan Ling and Jose Baritua, appealed to the NLRC but posted only a P200,000 supersedeas bond against an award computed at P9,097,624.00; the NLRC ordered additional bond to make the appeal effective and, upon respondent’s failure to post the required additional bond, dismissed the appeal and declared the LA decision final and executory (orders dated May 30 and November 27, 2002). Respondent then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) via Rule 65; the CA initially dismissed the petition for failure to attach a secretary’s certificate/board resolution or special power of attorney authorizing the signatory to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping, but on motion for reconsideration reinstated the petition.
In its decision dated August 14, 2003 (CA-G.R. SP No. 75535), the CA set aside the LA and NLRC decisions and exonerated JB Line, holding that an employer is not obligated to pay separation pay where business closure is due to serious losses and that JB Line had sufficiently proven serious business losses (relying on audited financial statements). Petitioners moved for reconsideration in the CA, which was denied. They then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, challenging (1) the CA’s allowance of the petition despit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to respondent JB Line’s petition despite the lack of a secretary’s certificate/board resolution or special power of attorney authorizing the signatory to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping?
- Did the Labor Arbiter’s decision become final and executory by virtue of respondent JB Line’s failure to post the additional bond required by the NLRC, thereby foreclosing appellate relief?
- Were petitioners entitled to separation pay despite respondent’s claim of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)