Catubay v. National Labor Relations Commission

KAPUNAN, J.:

The sole issue in the instant case is whether or not public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) abused its discretion in taking cognizance of private respondents' appeal and ordering the remand of the case to the labor arbiter. The individual petitioners were initially employed by Majescan Manufacturing Corporation and Pan Asia Food Manufacturing Corporation on the following dates, to wit: Evelyn Catubay - April 3, 1984; Patricia Concepcion - April 16, 1982; Rosita Cuerpo - May 2, 1982; Fely Lalu - January 10, 1981; Angelita Peralta - December 28, 1979; and Virginio Maglay - September 9, 1974. 1 On December 15, 1985, the business of Majescan Corporation and Pan Asia Corporation was sold to private respondent Fishwealth Canning Corporation (private respondent Fishwealth, for brevity) which is owned and managed by one Mrs. Lapaz Ngo.

Petitioners were retained in the employ of private respondent Fishwealth.2 Private respondent Fishwealth is a company engaged in the manufacture of canned sardines. The sardines, which are imported from Japan, arrive frozen in huge blocks of ice. The petitioners' job was to handle and process these frozen sardines in preparation for canning.

Petitioners, with the exception of Virginio Maglay, were piece-rate workers who were paid from P50.00 to P70.00 per day for work rendered from 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 nn and from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mondays to Saturdays.

Petitioner Virginio Maglay, on the other hand, was a daily-paid employee who worked 8 hours a day or from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 5 p.m.

He was paid a daily wage of P128.00. 3 Sometime in October 1992, petitioner Virginio Maglay suffered a work-related accident. He was bending to shovel fish from a tank when a nearby pile of trays containing wet fish fell on him.

He suffered broken hip bone and developed a limp as a result of the accident. The rest of the individual petitioners, on the other hand, contracted arthritis or rheumatism because of their constant exposure to cold.4 In order to recuperate from their work-related ailments, petitioners went on unpaid sick leave with the approval of private respondents. However, when they returned to work after their leave, private respondents refused to take them back unless they applied first with an employment agency and/or a labor contractor and accept new terms of employment.

Hence, petitioners filed a complaint for payment of salary differentials and separation pay against private respondents before the arbitration branch of the NLRC.5 Private respondents submitted their position paper to the labor arbiter on June 17, 1993, alleging therein that petitioners, being piece-rate workers are not entitled to the minimum wage. Neither are they entitled to separation pay because their refusal to be converted to contractual employees of the employment agency/labor contractor is tantamount to insubordination and abandonment which are grounds for termination.6 On January 24, 1994, Labor Arbiter Facundo L. Leda rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered ordering respondents Fishwealth Canning Corporation and Lapaz Ngo to pay, jointly and severally, the complainants the following amounts representing their salary differentials and separation pay: Evelyn Catubay - P50,541.14 Patricia Concepcion - 57,025.54 Rosita Cuerpo - 51,400.70 Fely Lalu - 52,154.70 Angelita Peralta - 68,184.74 Virginio Maglay - 26,624.00