Surima v. National Labor Relations Commission

BELLOSILLO, J.:

ANTONIO SURIMA filed on 11 September 1990 a complaint against private respondent Loreta Pediapco Lim for overtime pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and underpayment of wages. He alleged that he started working with private respondent in 1983 as cashier of Horace P. Lim Construction Supply, named after her son Horace, located in San Jose, Antique. In the same establishment he was also tasked with selling rice and rice husk.

Still another job he held for her was as collector of rentals for her three (3) buildings. Sometime in 1989 petitioner Surima was transferred to Sibalom, Antique, where he worked again as cashier but this time at private respondent's Caltex gasoline station. In August of the same year he also became a salesman in a drugstore owned by her although during harvest seasons he would be placed in charge of her business of buying and selling palay.

He was earning at that time a monthly salary of P1,000.00. On 1 October 1990, or almost three (3) weeks after he filed his complaint, petitioner was allegedly dismissed without just cause, hence his additional claim for back wages, reinstatement and attorney's fees. Private respondent contended that petitioner was first employed by her son Horace.

In July 1989, when the latter's business floundered and eventually ceased to operate, she hired petitioner as domestic helper receiving an income of P250.00 per week with free board and lodging. He also worked in her drugstore but only occasionally. On 1 October 1990 he left his work.

The Labor Arbiter did not sustain the claim of illegal dismissal for lack of evidence. On the other hand, he upheld the contention of private respondent that she hired petitioner only in July 1989 for which he was adequately compensated. Thus on 26 June 1991 the complaint was dismissed.1 On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) viewed the case differently.

According to public respondent Loreta Pediapco Lim had the burden of producing the employment records of her business enterprise as proof that petitioner was not in any way connected with any of her businesses since 1983. She failed to discharge this burden. Even granting that petitioner initially worked with her son Horace, the undisputed fact is that her son's business did not have a separate personality of its own.

Thus, it is not difficult to conclude that the business enterprises where petitioner worked belonged to one and the same owner, private respondent herself, hence, the finding of the NLRC that petitioner had been her employee since 1983. Furthermore, the NLRC took into account the fact that only a day after petitioner allegedly left his work his counsel sent private respondent a letter protesting his termination from the service. This prompt recourse to legal assistance was considered inconsistent with the claim of abandonment.

Moreover, there was not even a compliance by private respondent with the legal requisite of notice to petitioner at his last known address. As a consequence, the NLRC concluded that petitioner was illegally dismissed so that he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. However, due to the strain in the relationship of the parties and the lapse of time, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was considered by the NLRC to be more feasible under the circumstances.

Petitioner was likewise declared entitled to wage differentials, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and attorney's fees, but his other claims were denied for lack of basis. Thus on 12 January 1995 private respondent Loreta Pediapco Lim was ordered to pay petitioner the following amounts - 1. Back Wages (1 Oct.

1990 to 30 Sept. 1993) a. Basic Salary P1,000/mo.

x 36 mos. (3 yrs.) P36,000.00 b. 13th Month Pay P92.50/da.

x 26 das./mo. x 3 yrs.

P 7,215.00 c. Service Incentive Leave Pay P92.50/da. x 5 das./mo.

x 3 yrs. P 1,387.50