Dentech Manufacturing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission

GANCAYCO, J.:

The principal issue in this Petition is whether or not the private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to a 13th month pay. The herein petitioner Dentech Manufacturing Corporation is a domestic corporation organized under Philippine laws. Before the firm became a corporate entity, it was known as the J.L. Ledesma Enterprises, a sole proprietorship owned by the herein petitioner Jacinto Ledesma.

At present, he is the president and general manager of the corporation as well as the owner of the controlling interest thereof. The firm is engaged in the manufacture and sale of dental equipment and supplies. The herein private respondents Benjamin Marbella, Armando Torno, Juanito Tajan, Jr. and Joel Torno are members of the Confederation of Citizens Labor Union, a labor organization registered with the Department of Labor and Employment.

They used to be the employees of the petitioner firm, working therein as welders, upholsterers and painters. They were already employed with the company when it was still a sole proprietorship. They were dismissed from the firm beginning February 14, 1985.

On June 26, 1985, the private respondents filed a Complaint with the arbitration branch of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against the petitioners for, among others, illegal dismissal and violation of Presidential Decree No. 851.1 They were originally joined by another employee, one Raymundo Labarda, who later withdrew his Complaint. At first, they only sought the payment of their 13th month pay under Presidential Decree No. 851 as well as their separation pay, and the refund of the cash bond they filed with the company at the start of their employment. Later on, they sought their reinstatement as well as the payment of their 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, and separation pay in the event that they are not reinstated.

It is alleged in the Complaint and Position Paper accompanying the same that they were dismissed from the firm for pursuing union activities.2 On the other hand, the petitioners alleged in their Position Paper that the private respondents were not dismissed from the firm on account of their union activities. They maintained that the private respondents abandoned their work without informing the company about their reasons for doing so and that, accordingly, the private respondents are not entitled to service incentive leave pay and separation pay. The petitioners also argued that the private respondents are not entitled to a 13th month pay.

They maintained that each of the private respondents receive a total monthly compensation of more that Pl,000.00 and that under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 851, such employees are not entitled to receive a 13th month pay. The petitioners likewise alleged that the company is in bad financial shape and that pursuant to Section 3 of the Decree, the firm is exempted from complying with the provisions of the Decree.3 A hearing was conducted to allow the parties to further ventilate their views. Thereafter, the labor arbiter assigned to the case rendered a Decision dated January 28, 1987, the pertinent portions of which are as follows- Noticeable in this case is that complainants initially made manifest their lack of intent to seek reinstatement and their preference to collect their separation pay.

Towards the end of (the) proceedings this was changed to preference for reinstatement ... . On the other hand, respondent has indicated with sufficient clarity even at the inception of the case that it is charging complainant with abandonment and is willing to accept them back to work.

In short, while complainants supposedly wanted to report for work and respondents, supposedly ... willing to accept them back to work, we cannot imagine why the parties never achieved (an) understanding on this aspect. In line with the above manifestation of the parties, we hereby order the reinstatement of complainants.

We also find respondent's contention for exemption in the payment of (the) 13th month pay as without validity (sic). The ceiling of P1,000.00 a month in the matter of 13th month pay has been removed and complainants are entitled to receive from respondents at least the unprescribed 13th month pay for the last three years based on their uncontroverted pleadings. This order includes the money value of the service incentive leave pay of complainants and the cash bond ...

. x x x x x x x x x Premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents to reinstate complainants to their former positions, without backwages and to pay them the following amounts 1. Benjamin Marbella - P3,921.00 2.

Armando Torno - 3,828.00 3. Juanito Tajan Jr. - 3,270.00 4. Joel Torno - 878.00