South East International Rattan v. Coming

JR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated February 21, 2008 and Resolution3 dated February 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CEB-SP No. 02113. Petitioner South East International Rattan, Inc. (SEIRI) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting furniture to various countries with principal place of business at Paknaan, Mandaue City, while petitioner Estanislao Agbay, as per records, is the President and General Manager of SEIRI.4 On November 3, 2003, respondent Jesus J. Coming filed a complaint5 for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, with prayer for reinstatement, back wages, damages and attorney's fees.

Respondent alleged that he was hired by petitioners as Sizing Machine Operator on March 17, 1984. His work schedule is from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Initially, his compensation was on "pakiao" basis but sometime in June 1984, it was fixed at ₱150.00 per day which was paid weekly. In 1990, without any apparent reason, his employment was interrupted as he was told by petitioners to resume work in two months time.

Being an uneducated person, respondent was persuaded by the management as well as his brother not to complain, as otherwise petitioners might decide not to call him back for work. Fearing such consequence, respondent accepted his fate. Nonetheless, after two months he reported back to work upon order of management.6 Despite being an employee for many years with his work performance never questioned by petitioners, respondent was dismissed on January 1, 2002 without lawful cause.

He was told that he will be terminated because the company is not doing well financially and that he would be called back to work only if they need his services again. Respondent waited for almost a year but petitioners did not call him back to work. When he finally filed the complaint before the regional arbitration branch, his brother Vicente was used by management to persuade him to withdraw the case.7 On their part, petitioners denied having hired respondent asserting that SEIRI was incorporated only in 1986, and that respondent actually worked for SEIRI's furniture suppliers because when the company started in 1987 it was engaged purely in buying and exporting furniture and its business operations were suspended from the last quarter of 1989 to August 1992.

They stressed that respondent was not included in the list of employees submitted to the Social Security System (SSS). Moreover, respondent's brother, Vicente Coming, executed an affidavit8 in support of petitioners' position while Allan Mayol and Faustino Apondar issued notarized certifications9 that respondent worked for them instead.10 With the denial of petitioners that respondent was their employee, the latter submitted an affidavit11 signed by five former co-workers stating that respondent was one of the pioneer employees who worked in SEIRI for almost twenty years. In his Decision12 dated April 30, 2004, Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon ruled that respondent is a regular employee of SEIRI and that the termination of his employment was illegal.

The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent South East (Int'l.) Rattan, Inc. to pay complainant Jesus J. Coming the following: 1. Separation pay ₱114,400.00 2. Backwages P 30,400.00 3. Wage differential P 15,015.00 4. 13th month pay P 5,958.00 5. Holiday pay P 4,000.00 6. Service incentive leave pay P 2,000.00 Total award