Lynvil Fishing Enterprises v. Ariola

PEREZ, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of the Decision2 of the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 95094 dated 10 September 2007, granting the Writ of Certiorari prayed for under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure by herein respondents Andres G. Ariola, Jessie D. Alcovendas, Jimmy B. Calinao and Leopoldo Sebullen thereby reversing the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated March 31, 2004 rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby REINSTATED, except as to the award of attorney's fees, which is ordered DELETED.3 The version of the petitioners follows: 1.

Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. (Lynvil) is a company engaged in deep-sea fishing, operating along the shores of Palawan and other outlying islands of the Philippines.4 It is operated and managed by Rosendo S. de Borja. 2. On 1 August 1998, Lynvil received a report from Romanito Clarido, one of its employees, that on 31 July 1998, he witnessed that while on board the company vessel Analyn VIII, Lynvil employees, namely: Andres G. Ariola (Ariola), the captain; Jessie D. Alcovendas (Alcovendas), Chief Mate; Jimmy B. Calinao (Calinao), Chief Engineer; Ismael G. Nubla (Nubla), cook; Elorde Bañez (Bañez), oiler; and Leopoldo D. Sebullen (Sebullen), bodegero, conspired with one another and stole eight (8) tubs of "pampano"

and "tangigue" fish and delivered them to another vessel, to the prejudice of Lynvil.5 3. The said employees were engaged on a per trip basis or "por viaje"

which terminates at the end of each trip. Ariola, Alcovendas and Calinao were managerial field personnel while the rest of the crew were field personnel.6 4. By reason of the report and after initial investigation, Lynvil's General Manager Rosendo S. De Borja (De Borja) summoned respondents to explain within five (5) days why they should not be dismissed from service.

However, except for Alcovendas and Bañez,7 the respondents refused to sign the receipt of the notice. 5. Failing to explain as required, respondents' employment was terminated.

6. Lynvil, through De Borja, filed a criminal complaint against the dismissed employees for violation of P.D. 532, or the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Malabon City.8 7. On 12 November 1998, First Assistant City Prosecutor Rosauro Silverio found probable cause for the indictment of the dismissed employees for the crime of qualified theft9 under the Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, the story of the defense is: 1. The private respondents were crew members of Lynvil's vessel named Analyn VIII.10 2. On 31 July 1998, they arrived at the Navotas Fishport on board Analyn VIII loaded with 1,241 bañeras of different kinds of fishes.

These bañeras were delivered to a consignee named SAS and Royale.11 The following day, the private respondents reported back to Lynvil office to inquire about their new job assignment but were told to wait for further advice. They were not allowed to board any vessel.12 3. On 5 August 1998, only Alcovendas and Bañez received a memorandum from De Borja ordering them to explain the incident that happened on 31 July 1998.

Upon being informed about this, Ariola, Calinao, Nubla and Sebullen went to the Lynvil office.

However, they were told that their employments were already terminated.13 Aggrieved, the employees filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission-National Capital Region on 25 August 1998 a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for backwages, salary differential reinstatement, service incentive leave, holiday pay and its premium and 13th month pay from 1996 to1998. They also claimed for moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees for their dismissal with bad faith.14 They added that the unwarranted accusation of theft stemmed from their oral demand of increase of salaries three months earlier and their request that they should not be required to sign a blank payroll and vouchers.15 On 5 June 2002, Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes found merit in complainants' charge of illegal dismissal.16 The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding that complainants were illegally dismissed, ordering respondents to jointly and severally pay complainants (a) separation pay at one half month pay for every year of service; (b) backwages; (c) salary differential; (d) 13th month pay; and (e) attorney's fees, as follows: "1) Andres Ariola Backwages P234,000.00 (P6,500.00 x 36 = P234,000.00) Separation Pay - P74,650.00 13th Month Pay - P6,500.00