Academy v. National Labor Relations Commission

PUNO, J.:

Petitioners seek to annul and set aside the Decision1 of the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, Cebu City, affirming with modification the Decision,2 dated August 26, 1993, of Labor Arbiter Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr. and granting monetary awards to private respondents in the total amount of three hundred twenty thousand two hundred seventy five pesos and forty two centavos (P320,275.42). Petitioner St. Michael Academy is an educational institution located in Catarman, Northern Samar.

Petitioner Sister Patricia Aguilar is its principal. Private respondents, Hermie G. Bolosiño,3 Josephine A. Delorino, Ceferina Daclag, Imelda P. Aleria, Bernardita S. Oserraos, Ferliza B. Golo and Ederlinda M. Rebadulla, are former teachers of petitioner school. The instant case started when a complaint for payment of terminal pay was filed by Bolosiño and Delorino against the petitioners on July 9, 1992.4 This was docketed as RAB Case No. 8-0311-92.

On August 3, 1992, Bolosiño and Delorino filed a new complaint for separation pay. The case was raffled off to Labor Arbiter Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr.5 On August 21, 1992, petitioners submitted their position paper6 where they disputed the right of the complainants to separation pay on the ground that they were not illegally dismissed. They presented the resignation letters7 of Bolosiño and Delorino to prove that they voluntarily resigned on June 15, 1992 and April 4, 1992, respectively.

In September 1992, Bolosiño and Delorino filed their unverified position paper8 where they were joined by seven (7) former teachers of petitioner school, namely: Gallano, Daclag, Aleria, Oserraos, Rebadulla, Tan and Golo. No complaints have been filed previously by these teachers. Their unverified position paper alleged new claims for wage differentials, vacation and sick leave benefits, separation pay and "all other benefits to which complainants are entitled under the Labor Code".

To justify their claim for separation pay, the seven teachers alleged that they were forced to resign following their rally against petitioner school for not releasing their share in the tuition fee increase. On November 4, 1995 petitioners objected to the joining of the seven teachers in the unverified position paper and the inclusion of monetary claims not alleged in the original complaints. They requested for time to file a reply which was granted.

The teachers were also allowed to submit a rejoinder.9 On November 5, 1992 Oserraos, Daclag, Aleria, Golo and Rebadulla filed their individual complaints10 against petitioner school. Their complaints were docketed as RAB Case Nos. 11-0657-92 to 11-0661-92. On November 13, 1992, petitioners submitted their Reply.11 They raised as issue the illegality of including in the unverified position paper new parties and new claims.

They also submitted the voluntary resignation letters12 of the teachers to belie their alleged intimidation and harassment. Petitioners then received from the office of the Labor Arbiter copies of the individual complaints. No rejoinder was filed by the teachers to petitioners' reply.

On March 5, 1993, petitioners received an Order, dated February 4, 1993, from Labor Arbiter Velasquez informing the parties that the case was already submitted for decision pursuant to Section 5, Rule V of the NLRC Rules. On March 8, 1993, petitioners received the sworn statements/affidavits13 of Bolosiño, Delorino, Daclag, Oserraos, Aleria, Rebadulla and Golo which specified their monetary claims. Some of the money claims dated back to 1981.

On March 31, 1993, petitioners filed a reply to the complainants' specified claims by way of an affidavit14 executed by Sister Escolastica Batungbakal, treasurer of petitioner school. To negate their monetary liability, petitioners submitted the following: (1) payroll sheets15 signed by each complainant showing the payment of their vacation pay and monthly salary over and above the wage prescribed by law; (2) copies of "Notice of Inspection Results"16 issued by DOLE Inspector Romeo Claveria for the year 1991 and by DOLE Inspector Abraham Matillado for the year 1992 showing petitioner school's compliance with the mandated minimum wage for employees; (3) payroll sheets17 showing compliance with Wage Order VIII-02; and (4) provisions of the School Manual18 on vacation and sick leave. They also invoked the prescription of some of complainants' monetary claims.

Labor Arbiter Velasquez decided the case in favor of the complainants. He awarded Delorino the amount of P41,040.75 consisting of salary differentials for the school years 1983 to 1992 (inclusive of vacation leave pay), 13th month pay for three (3) school years and service incentive leave pay for three (3) years, but ruled out her claim for separation pay due to her resignation; awarded Bolosiño the amount of P53,799.23 consisting of salary differentials for the school years 1987 to1992 (inclusive of vacation leave pay), 13th month pay for two (2) school years, separation pay for five (5) years, backwages and moral and exemplary damages; awarded Rebadulla the amount of P25,815.76 consisting of salary differentials for the school years 1988 to 1991 (inclusive of vacation leave pay), 13th month pay for three (3) years and service incentive leave pay for three (3) years, but found her resignation valid; awarded Golo the amount of P22,353.34 consisting of salary differentials for the school years 1990 to 1992 (inclusive of vacation leave pay), 13th month pay for two (2) years and service incentive leave pay for three (3) years, but found her resignation valid; awarded Aleria the amount of P24,866.04 consisting of salary differentials for the school years 1988 to 1992 (inclusive of vacation leave pay), but found her resignation valid; awarded Oserraos the amount of P54,000.25 consisting of salary differentials for the school years 1987 to 1992 (inclusive of vacation leave pay), separation pay for five (5) years, backwages and moral and exemplary damages for her involuntary resignation; and awarded Daclag the amount of P116,924.67 consisting of salary differentials from 1984 to1992 (inclusive of vacation leave pay), 13th month pay for eight (8) years, service incentive leave pay for eleven (11) years, separation pay for eleven (11) years, backwages and moral and exemplary damages for her involuntary resignation.19 The Arbiter rejected petitioners' claim that complainants violated the rules of procedure by presenting new claims in their position paper citing Section 6, Rule VII (sic) of the NLRC Rules and Article 221 of the Labor Code.

He likewise held that technical rules of procedure [and] of evidence are not binding in labor proceedings. He also rejected petitioners' defense that some monetary claims of complainants have been barred by prescription. He declared that considerations of substantial justice demand that the claims be decided regardless of the three-year prescriptive period.20 He awarded separation pay to some of the complainants after finding that their resignations were involuntary.21 Petitioners appealed to the public respondent NLRC.

Except for deleting the award of damages and service incentive leave pay and denying some monetary claims due to prescription, public respondent affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, viz. : x x x x x x x x x After a review of the facts and the evidence vis-a-vis the appeal, We find no justification to disturb the findings and conclusion of the Labor Arbiter, the same being substantially supported by the evidence on record.

As to the appellants' pretension that "the clarificatory questions allegedly posed by the arbiter on the appellees were not made in the presence of the appellants thereby effectively violating appellants' right to due process", We find that after the Labor Arbiter issued his Order of February 4, 1993 (sic) that the case was deemed submitted for decision, the parties submitted additional pleadings and/or evidence, and consequently the Labor Arbiter had to evaluate them. Anent the monetary awards for unpaid labor standards, We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter in granting them. We believe that complainants' claim for "terminal pay"

necessarily involves all that they are entitled to. What the law grants to the employees cannot be defeated by a mere defense of technicality, and We find relevance on the Supreme Court's view of substantial justice on the point. It is not only legal but also moral.

However, while we affirm the grant of the aforecited monetary benefits, we see the need to revise the computation in the light of the respondents' claims, which we sustain, that some of the claims had already prescribed. Accordingly, the complainants are hereby granted the following: x x x x x x x x x SUMMARY 1. Herme Bolosiño = P 87,892.74 2.

Ederlinda Rebadulla = 11,455.92 3. Ferliza Golo = 18,350.56 4. Imelda Aleria = 11,664.22 5.

Bernardita Oserraos = 83,942.52 6. Ceferina Daclag = 100,822.72 7. Josephine Delorino = 6,146.74