Case Digest (G.R. No. 108405)
Facts:
Jaime D. Viernes, Carlos R. Garcia, Bernard Bustillo, Danilo C. Balanag, Ferdinand Della, Edward A. Abellera, Alexander Abanag, Domingo Asia, Francisco Bayuga, Arthur M. Oribello, Buenaventura De Guzman, Jr., Robert A. Ordono, Bernard V. Jularbal, Ignacio C. Alingbas and Leodel N. Soriano, Petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division), and Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), G.R. No. 108405, April 04, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Austria-Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Fifteen complainants, all engaged by BENECO as meter readers, were initially hired under identical written appointments covering the period October 8 to 31, 1990 at a daily rate of P66.75. Although their letters fixed employment for that definite period, the complainants continued to perform meter-reading duties beyond October 31, 1990 up to January 2, 1991. On January 3, 1991 each received an identical notice of termination dated December 29, 1990 stating that their services would terminate effective December 31, 1990 due to retrenchment for overstaffing.
Each complainant filed a separate illegal dismissal complaint; the cases were consolidated. The Labor Arbiter (decision promulgated October 18, 1991) dismissed the illegal dismissal claims for lack of merit but (a) directed respondent to extend temporary contracts (except for Jaime Viernes) and to pay each complainant P2,590.50 as indemnity for failure to give the 30‑day notice required by Article 283 (or alternatively P5,000 plus the indemnity), (b) awarded specified underpayments of wages to each complainant, (c) ordered the reinstatement of Jaime Viernes as a regular meter reader with P2,590.50 indemnity, and (d) awarded attorneys’ fees of P7,000.
Both sides appealed to the NLRC. On July 2, 1992 the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter by declaring the dismissals illegal and ordering reinstatement of the complainants to their former positions as meter readers or equivalent with payment of backwages limited to one year; it deleted the award of indemnity and attorneys’ fees but affirmed the underpayment awards. Complainants filed a motion for clarification/partial reconsideration on August 27, 1992, which the NLRC denied by resolution dated September 24, 1992.
Petitioners sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari to this Court challenging the NLRC’s July 2, 1992 decision and its Septem...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion by ordering reinstatement of petitioners on probationary status when it had found they were regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code?
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion by limiting petitioners’ backwages to one year despite finding illegal dismissal?
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in deleting the Labor Arbiter’s award of indemnity and attorneys’ fees?
- When did the NLRC decision become final and executory for purposes of enforcement — upon receipt of the NLRC decision, or upon receipt of the NLRC resolution denying reconsideration — and does the NLRC’s rule o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)