Title
Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. vs. Ybarola, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 198662
Decision Date
Sep 12, 2012
Former RMN employees challenged termination, claiming inadequate separation pay; SC ruled commissions part of salary, invalidated quitclaims, upheld CA decision.

Case Summary (A.M. RTJ-20-2600)

Factual Background

Ybarola and Rivera were terminated from their positions on September 15, 2002, following a corporate reorganization by RMN. They received separation pay amounts of P631,250.00 for Ybarola and P481,250.00 for Rivera, and subsequently executed release/quitclaim affidavits. Dissatisfied with their compensation, both filed complaints for illegal dismissal and sought additional money claims, including attorney’s fees, asserting that their salaries were P60,000.00 and P40,000.00 per month.

Compulsory Arbitration Proceedings

The respondents contended that the release/quitclaim should not preclude them from claiming additional benefits as they had signed these documents under dire necessity. RMN asserted that the separation pay was fair and reflected a reasonable settlement. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint but ordered additional separation pay. Upon appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the complaint, asserting that the quitclaim was valid and that the inclusion of commissions in calculating separation pay was improper.

The CA Decision and Rulings

On February 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals (CA) overturned the NLRC’s decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's separation pay award and ruling that the respondents’ commissions should be included in their salary calculations. The CA deemed the release/quitclaim invalid due to unconscionable terms and lack of voluntariness, underscoring that the respondents were effectively compelled to accept the settlement due to financial pressures.

The Motion for Reconsideration

Following the CA's unfavorable decision, RMN filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the CA had erred in not exonerating Canoy personally and in disregarding the proper evaluation of quitclaims. They contended that Canoy bore no individual responsibility for the dismissal and that the burden to demonstrate the legitimacy of the claims regarding commissions rested with the respondents.

Respondents’ Position

The respondents opposed the motion for reconsideration, arguing that the petitioners had previously raised the same arguments and that Canoy’s liability had already become a conclusive matter due to the petitioners’ failure to raise it in earlier stages of the proceedings. They maintained that the claims lacked merit given the context of the respective decisions issued by the NLRC and the CA.

Petitioners' Reply

In their reply, the petitioners insisted that the issues raised had not been adequately addressed and sought reinstatement of their petition. They challenged the notion that Canoy’s liability had been resolved, claiming satisfaction was neither compulsory nor legally sufficient in the prior proceedings.

Court Ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration

The Court ultimately denied the motion for reconsideration, stating the arguments presented were redundant and unconvincing. It reinforced that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.