Case Digest (G.R. No. 169191)
Facts:
Romeo Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, G.R. No. 169191, June 01, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Romeo Villaruel filed a complaint for payment of separation pay with the NLRC (NCR, Quezon City) on February 15, 1999 against respondent Yeo Han Guan, who does business as Yuhans Enterprises. In his amended complaint (Dec. 6, 1999) petitioner alleged employment beginning June 1963 with Ribonette Manufacturing Company (which subsequently changed names and by 1993 operated as Yuhans Enterprises), continuous service for nearly 35 years, an illness beginning October 5, 1998 with hospitalization, and that when he reported for work on December 12, 1998 he was not allowed to resume duties; he requested lighter work but was denied and offered P15,000 as separation pay that allegedly covered only 1993–1999. Petitioner sought separation pay calculated from June 1963, service incentive leave and attorney’s fees.
Respondent, in his position paper, alleged that petitioner was employed only from March 1, 1993 until about February 1999, that he stopped working because of illness and, after recovery, was told he could return but never did; respondent maintained he never dismissed petitioner and that petitioner manifested unwillingness to return and requested separation pay.
On November 27, 2000 the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment for petitioner awarding separation pay computed from June 1963 to October 1998 (P91,445.00) and service incentive leave (P3,015.00). Respondent appealed to the NLRC, whose Third Division on March 31, 2003 affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision; the NLRC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on May 30, 2003. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Rule 65.
On February 16, 2005 the Court of Appeals partially granted the petition: it deleted the award of separation pay but upheld the service incentive leave and enjoined the NLRC from executing the separation pay award (or ordered restitution if already executed). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on August 2, 2005. Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court by petition assailing the CA Decision and Resolution, arguing principally that (1) he did not admit the fact or validity of te...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner actually dismissed by respondent so as to be entitled to separation pay under Article 284 of the Labor Code?
- If petitioner was not dismissed, is he nevertheless entitled to separation pay under Article 284 or any other provision of the Labor Code or its implementing rules?
- May the Court, in the circumstances of this case, award financial assistance as an equitable/con...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)