Case Digest (G.R. No. L-61898)
Facts:
Lao Sok v. Lydia Sabaysabay, et al., G.R. No. 61898, August 09, 1985, the Supreme Court First Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Lao Sok was the owner-operator of the Shelton Department Store in Quiapo, Manila. The private respondents — Lydia Sabaysabay, Amparo Mangulat, Rosita Salviejo, Nenita Ruinata, Vilma Capillo, and Virginia Sanorjo — were salesladies employed at that store, each earning a daily wage of P14.00.On October 12, 1980 the Shelton Department Store was destroyed by fire. Petitioner did not file the prescribed report on the shutdown with the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor, nor did he seek prior clearance (the parties disputed only the reporting, not the fact of the fire). Immediately after the fire petitioner told the salesladies he would transfer them to his other stores; several weeks passed without such transfers. Petitioner then told them he would pay separation pay and other benefits as soon as he collected insurance proceeds; the six salesladies accepted that promise.
Petitioner later collected the insurance proceeds but neither paid separation pay nor re-employed the salesladies in his other stores. On May 14, 1981 the private respondents filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment alleging illegal dismissal and nonpayment of separation pay, allowance and incentive leave pay. Labor Arbiter Apolonio L. Reyes, after requiring position papers, rendered judgment on July 23, 1981 ordering separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service, proportionate to each complainant’s length of service; other issues were dismissed as judicata.
Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission on October 2, 1981. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner’s failure to report the fire-related shutdown to the Regional Office or to obtain prior clearance render the dismissals illegal and relieve him of the obligation to pay separation pay?
- Is petitioner obligated to pay separation pay to the private respondents, either by operation of law or by virtue of his promise whic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)