This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bench, the Court finds that respondents' motion to reduce appeal bond was predicated on meritorious and justifiable grounds. First, the fact that eight complainants failed to verify or affix their signatures on the position paper filed before the Labor Arbiter merits the exclusion of the monetary awards adjudged to them. In Martos v. New San Jose Builders, Inc.,[34] it was held that the failure of some of the complainants therein to verify their position paper submitted before the Labor Arbiter brought about the dismissal of the complaint as to them who did not verify. The Court went on to say that their negligence and passive attitude towards the rule on verification amounted to their refusal to further prosecute their claims. Second, the withdrawal of seven complainants[35] in this case likewise warrants the reduction of the monetary award rendered against respondents. Suffice it to say that the said seven complainants are bound by the Affidavits of Desistance which are presumed to have been freely and voluntarily executed by them. Accordingly, they no longer participated in the subsequent proceedings after having received their last salaries and due benefits. | |||||
|
2015-04-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the CA when it held that the Labor Arbiter's award of separation pay is an equitable disposition. Although petitioners correctly pointed out that separation pay was not prayed for in the complaint, Sanchez is deemed to have accepted the separation pay awarded by the Labor Arbiter since he never questioned the same. The Court has ruled that separation pay may be awarded if the employee decides not to be reinstated.[35] Besides, the altercation that transpired between Sanchez and Ong-Sitco is enough basis to conclude that there exists an apparent strained relationship between them. This strained relationship is also very evident from petitioners' refusal to retain Sanchez under their employ.[36] While petitioners contend that their act of sending Sanchez memorandum-letters directing him to report for work exhibits their willingness to retain him, the same hardly convinces. We have already concluded earlier that the said memorandum-letters were mere afterthought made only to cover-up petitioners' act of illegally dismissing Sanchez. For obvious reasons, they cannot be viewed as a sign of petitioners' sincere willingness to reinstate Sanchez. Further, even if the issue of strained relations was not raised in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, it was nonetheless discussed and argued by the parties in their respective pleadings submitted to the NLRC when the case was brought on appeal. Clearly, there is sufficient basis for the grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement in this case. | |||||