Macahilig v. National Labor Relations Commission

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated February 27, 2003 and the Resolution2 dated April 22, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 72762 which reversed and set aside the Resolution dated February 21, 2002 and the Order dated June 28, 2002 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Araceli de Jesus ( private respondent) is the owner of a boutique shop bearing her name located in Unit Plaza, J. Bocobo cor. Arquiza Streets, Ermita, Manila which was registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade on December 23, 1996.

Joel Macahilig (petitioner) was one of private respondent's three sales clerks who started working in the boutique shop on January 7, 1997. His latest monthly salary was ₱3,200.00. In 2000, private respondent's boutique shop suffered huge losses due to substantial reduction in sales; thus, she adopted as a cost-saving measure the rotation of her three sales clerks, by which each one of them would take a month's leave of absence without pay to start in 2001.

The sales clerks agreed among themselves that petitioner's leave would be in January, Elsa Andrino (Andrino) in February, and Abella Amistad (Amistad) in March, with all of them reporting regularly for work in April as private respondent expected that business conditions would improve. However, due to the zero daily sales in the middle part of January 2001, private respondent temporarily closed the boutique shop on January 22, 2001 to cut down on electricity and the daily meal and transportation allowances of her sales clerks and reopened the boutique shop on February 8, 2001. According to petitioner, private respondent told him on February 8, 2001 that his services were no longer needed.

On February 12, 2001, petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for separation pay, backwages, and other monetary benefits and damages against private respondent. In his position paper, he alleged that during his vacation leave without pay, he would call private respondent to ask when he would resume his duties but would only get excuses not to return yet; that on February 8, 2001, private respondent told him that she no longer wished to continue his services without giving any reason and prior notice. Petitioner asked for separation pay as reinstatement would not be in the best interest of the parties due to the circumstances availing in their case.

Private respondent denied having dismissed petitioner, as he simply refused to return to work and claimed that he filed the case to exact money from her. She submitted the affidavits of petitioner's co-workers, Andrino3 and Amistad,4 in which they stated that it was petitioner who did not return to work anymore, and that they expressed satisfaction as to their salaries and benefits, including their annual 13th month pay; that Amistad stated that petitioner had been complaining incessantly about commuting daily to and from Ermita, Manila since he resides in Caloocan. Private respondent alleged that she received a phone call from a woman who identified herself as petitioner's mother who told her, "Bigyan mo na lang ng puhunan sa negosyo si Joel ,"

then hung up. She also denied underpayment or non-payment of petitioner's monetary claims and submitted the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Inspection Report5 of Senior Labor Enforcement Officer Efren Miranda who inspected the working conditions of the boutique shop in 1999 and reported "no violation" committed by her.

In a Decision6 dated September 14, 2001, the LA ruled in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of the complainant illegal. Respondents are ordered to pay complainant the following: 1. Separation pay ₱32,000.00 2. Backwages 11,093.33 3. 13th Month pay 9,565.33 4. Service Incentive Leave Pay not entitled