THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 194467, July 17, 2020
MELCHOR A. CUADRA, MELENCIO TRINIDAD, AND SERAFIN TRINIDAD, PETITIONERS, V. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
When there is no evidence to the contrary, an employee's period of service is presumed continuous and its reckoning point shall be the day the employee first came under the employ of the employer. However, if in the interim, the employer-employee relationship was validly severed, returning to the same employer for work shall be considered a rehiring, and the length of service shall be reckoned from the day the employee was rehired.
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104828. The Court of Appeals declared that the length of service of Melchor Cuadra (Melchor), Melencio Trinidad (Melencio), and Serafin Trinidad (Serafin) in San Miguel Corporation (San Miguel) must be reckoned from the time they were declared regular employees on December 15, 1994.4 Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision5 that reckoned the computation of Melchor, Melencio, and Serafin's length of service from the time they first started working in San Miguel, i.e., 1985 for Melchor, and 1988 for Melencio and Serafin.
Melchor, Melencio, and Serafin were among the 606 complainants who filed an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission against Lippercon Services, Inc. and San Miguel on January 4, 1991.7 During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, 51 out of the 60 complainants amicably settled with San Miguel.
In the December 15, 1994 Decision,8 Labor Arbiter Manual R. Caday (Labor Arbiter Caday) found that the remaining nine (9) complainants were regular employees of San Miguel. According to Labor Arbiter Caday, Lippercon Services was a mere labor-only contractor and that San Miguel was the true employer of complainants. Therefore, it was San Miguel who was ordered to reinstate the complainants to their former positions as regular employees, their regular status "effective as of the date of [the Labor Arbiter's] decision."9 The complainants were then awarded backwages "of not more than three (3) years"10 as well as wage differentials pursuant to Wage Order No. NCR-01 and NCR-02. The dispositive portion of Labor Arbiter Caday's December 15, 1994 Decision reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as the true employer of the remaining nine (9) complainants, with the respondent Lippercon Services, Inc. as "labor only" contractor; declaring the dismissal of the said remaining nine (9) complainants to be illegal and ordering the respondent San Miguel Corporation to reinstate them as regular employees, effective as of the date of this decision, to their former positions at its Manila Glass Plant with backwages of not more than three (3) years without any qualification or reductions and to pay them the P17.00 and P10.00 Wage increases under Wage Order No. NCR-01 and Wage Order No. 2 pursuant to the above dispositions.San Miguel appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission. In its May 31, 1995 Resolution, the Commission's Third Division modified the Decision of Labor Arbiter Caday, ordering instead the payment of separation pay to complainants, thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.11cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED as aforediscussed. The award of reinstatement with one (1) year backwages is hereby deleted. In lieu thereof, respondent is hereby ordered to pay complainants their separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, as period of at least six (6) months considered as one (1) whole year or the benefits provided under the Company's total assistance program, whichever is higher.12cralawlawlibraryAlleging grave abuse of discretion on the National Labor Relations Commission's part, the complainants directly filed a Petition for Certiorari before this Court.13 However, pursuant to St. Martin Funeral Homes v. National Labor Relations Commission,14 this Court referred the Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.15
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated 31 May 1995 and Resolution dated 13 October 1995 are both AFFIRMED with modification that the petitioners are likewise entitled to backwages corresponding to the period commencing on their respective dates of dismissal until the closure of the furnace in June 1993. The case is hereby REMANDED to the public respondent for a computation of the amount of backwages to be paid to petitioners in accordance with this decision as modified.17cralawlawlibrarySan Miguel Corporation filed a Motion for Reconsideration and the complainants filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the April 12, 1999 Resolution.18 The Court of Appeals, in an October 14, 1999 Resolution, denied San Miguel's Motion for Reconsideration and partly granted the complainants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration by deleting the award of separation pay and ordering the complainants' reinstatement.19 The dispositive portion of the October 14, 1999 Resolution states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Accordingly, the private respondent's motion for reconsideration is DENIED and the petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration is partly granted. The Court's Decision dated April 12, 1999 is MODIFIED to the extent that the award of separation pay is deleted and private respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions. In all other respects, the Decision stands.20cralawlawlibraryThe Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by San Miguel was denied by this Court in the Resolution dated December 15, 1999 for having been filed out of time and for lack of the required affidavit of service. San Miguel's Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion for Reconsideration were likewise denied by this Court.21
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to proceed to the premises of the respondents at SMC Complex, San Miguel Avenue, Mandaluyong City, or wherever it may be found to cause the immediate reinstatement of complainants herein as decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.23cralawlawlibraryDuring the execution proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise. Specifically for Melchor, Melencio, and Serafin, they each received P550,000.00 "as full, complete, absolute[,] and final settlement and satisfaction"24 of each of their money claims and benefits as well as "any and all claims" connected with the illegal dismissal case filed before the National Labor Relations Commission. The complete terms of the quitclaim are as follows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
I, Melchor A. Cuadra[,] of legal age, Filipino[,] and with residence address at ___________ , hereby acknowledge receipt of United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB-SMC Complex, Mandaluyong City) Check No. 0000047548 dated May 23, 2003 in the amount of Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP 550,000.00) only, given to me by San Miguel Corporation as full, complete, absolute[,] and final settlement and satisfaction of all my money claims and benefits in connection with the case of Melchor Cuadra, et al. vs. San Miguel Corporation, et al.[,] [docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 01-0049-91, now pending before the NLRC and whatever claims I may have in connection therewith as well as any and all claims of whatever kind and nature which I had, I now may have or hereafter have against all respondents regarding incidents of this case and if any and all other cases, related to or which arose from the incidents of this case which were filed or are still pending.25cralawlawlibraryThe compromise agreement was approved by Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam Labor Arbiter Macam),26 replacing Labor Arbiter Caday who had died during the pendency of the execution proceedings.27 Labor Arbiter Macam's June 25, 2003 Order provides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The parties appeared and manifested that they have finally settled the case with each complainant receiving a sum of P550,000.00 plus reinstatement with a daily salary rate of P400.00. Reinstatement will begin on July 1, 2003. Submitted in addition, are the respective Quitclaim and Release which complainants have executed.Pursuant to the compromise agreement, Melchor, Melencio, and Serafin were accordingly reinstated on July 1, 2003. However, as reflected in their newly issued identification cards, San Miguel reckoned the date of their employment from July 1, 2003—not from the time they were first hired to work in San Miguel, which was 1985 for Melchor, and 1988 for Melencio and Serafin.29
ACCORDINGLY, finding the agreement to be fair and reasonable, the same is approved and the case dismissed, with prejudice.28cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the complainants' length of service must be reckoned from the date when they were hired specifically in 1985 for Melchor Cuadra, 1988 for both Melencio and Serafin Trinidad.Similar to Voluntary Arbitrator Ancheta's finding, the Court of Appeals found that the parties agreed on reinstatement, defined as the "continuation of the service that was temporarily stopped due to an act of illegal dismissal imposed against an employee."38 It noted that the June 25, 2003 compromise judgment ordered reinstatement.39 Therefore, San Miguel cannot conclude that the compromise amount included separation pay.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.37 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator dated July 22, 2008 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the reckoning period for the computation of the length of service of the private respondents shall be on December 15, 1994.Melchor, Melencio, and Serafin then filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, maintaining that the length of service should be reckoned from 1985 for Melchor, and 1988 for Melencio and Serafin.
SO ORDERED.45 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the respondents' Partial Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.On January 3, 2011, petitioners filed their Petition for Review on Certiorari,51 which respondent commented on April 11, 2011.52
SO ORDERED.50 (Emphasis in the original)
I, [name of employee], of legal age, Filipino[,] and with residence address at ___________ , hereby acknowledge receipt of United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB-SMC Complex, Mandaluyong City) Check No. 0000047548 dated May 23, 2003 in the amount of Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 550,000.00) only, given to me by San Miguel Corporation as full, complete, absolute and final settlement and satisfaction of all my money claims and benefits in connection with the case of Melchor Cuadra, et al. vs. San Miguel Corporation, et al., [d]ocketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 01-0049-91, now pending before the NLRC and whatever claims I may have in connection therewith as well as any and all claims of whatever kind and nature which I had, I now may have or hereafter have against all i;espondents regarding incidents of this case and if any and all other cases, related to or which arose from the incidents of this case which were filed or are still pending.75cralawlawlibraryThe quitclaim provides that the compromise amount of P550,000.00 shall serve as "full, complete, absolute and final settlement and satisfaction of all my money claims and benefits in connection with the case of Melchor Cuadra, et al. vs. San Miguel Corporation, et al., docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 01-0049-91, now pending before the NLRC and whatever claims I may have in connection therewith as well as any and all claims of whatever kind and nature which I had, I now may have or hereafter have against all respondents regarding incidents of this case[.]" These claims, in connection with the case, are the claims for payment of backwages, for regularization, and for reinstatement. Nothing in the quitclaim, however, indicates that the compromise amount respectively paid to petitioners included separation pay.
With respect to the third issue of whether or not the remaining nine (9) complainants were illegally dismissed, the evidence on record equally and convincingly requires an affirmative answer.For there to be an illegal dismissal, there must first exist the status as regular employee and the concomitant violation of the regular employee's security of tenure.93 There can be no illegal dismissal in 1990 or 1991 when the employee only became a regular employee in 1994.
The evidence shows that complainants Melchor Cuadra, Joselito Flores, Dennis Rauto, were dismissed on January 26, 1991, while Raymundo Gaviola, Eliseo Yumang, Abelardo Carlos, Serafin Trinidad and Melencio Trinidad were dismissed on November 21, 1990 and Ben Mangindin on December 27, 1991, all by respondent [San Miguel Corporation].
As undisputedly testified! to by the complainants, they were dismissed by respondent [San Miguel Corporation] due to different reasons. According to complainant Melchor Cuadra, on January 21, 1991 they were told by foreman Salucia that their line will be shut down or closed because of the Gulf War (t.s.n. 27, Oct. 3, 1991). While complainants Eliseo Yumang and Serafin Trinidad were told by their supervisor Oligario that they are being terminated because they were among those laid off or retrenched (t.s.n., pp. 19-23, Sept. 20, 1993 and pp. 15-17, Nov. 11, 1993). On the other hand, complainant Ben Mangindin testified that in the notice posted in the Bulletin Board on December 27, 1991, it was announced that all contract workers assigned at the Applied Color Level (ACL) Department of SMC Manila Glass Plant will be up to December 27, 1991 only (tsn, pp. 9-11, July 28, 1993).92cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 7-24.
2 Id. at 25-37. The June 29, 2010 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and was concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizzaro and Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Special Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 38-42. The November 8, 2010 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizzarro and Jane Aurora Lantion of the Former Special Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 52.
5 Id. at 51-57. The July 22, 2008 Decision was penned by Voluntary Arbitrator Angel A. Ancheta.
6 Id. at 52.
7 Id. at 58.
8 Id. at 58-74. The Decision dated December 15, 1994 was penned by Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday of the National Labor Relations Commission, national Capital Region, Manila.
9 Id. at 73.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 76. Writ of Execution.
13 Id.
14 356 Phil. 811 (1998) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].
15Rollo, p. 76.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 76-77.
18 Id. at 77.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 78.
24 Id. at 32. Court of Appeals Decision.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 33.
27 Id. at 55. Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 51.
31 Id. at 55.
32 Id. at 56.
33 Id. at 57.
34 Id.
35 Rules op Court, Rule 130, sec. 9 provides:
SECTION 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
36Rollo, pp. 51-57.
37 Id. at 57.
38 Id. at 34. Court of Appeals Decision.
39 Id. at 33-34.
40 Id. at 34-35.
41 Id. at 35.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 36.
44 Id. at 25-37.
45 Id. at 36-37.
46 Id. at 39.
47 Id. at 40.
48 Id. at 41.
49 Id. at 38—42.
50 Id. at 42.
51 Id. at 7-24.
52 Id. at 84-97.
53 Id. at 101-106.
54 Id. at 115-124.
55 Id. at 127. Resolution dated August 29, 2012.
56 Id. at 129-130.
57 Id. at 131-141.
58 Id. at 142-158.
59 Id. at 191.
60 Id. at 171-176.
61 Id. at 172. Serafin Trinidad's Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim dated February 27, 2015 provided:
I also manifest that the payment by the Respondent Company of any or all of the foregoing sum of money shall neither be taken by me, my heirs or assigns as a confession and/or admission of the existence of employment relationship between the Respondent Company and I nor any liability on the part of the Respondent Company, as well as successors-in-interest, stockholders, officers, directors, agents or employees for any matter, cause[,] demand or claim that I may have against any or all of them. I acknowledge that I have received all amounts that are now, or in the future, may be due me from the Company. If hereafter, I am found to be entitled to any other amount, the above consideration shall constitute a full and final satisfaction of any and all such undisclosed claims. I also acknowledge that I have not suffered any illness or injury directly or indirectly caused or aggravated by my employment with the Respondent Company.
I further warrant that neither I nor my heirs or assigns will institute any action and will continue to prosecute any pending action, if any, against the Respondent Company and individual Respondent, as well as their successors-in-interest, stockholders, officers, directors, agents or employees, by reason of my past transactions with the Company.
62 Id. at 171-172.
63 Id. at 183-186.
64 Id. at 184.
65 Id. at 139.
66 Id.
67 Id.
68 |d
69 LABOR CODE, art. 283 (now art. 298) provides:
ARTICLE 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. — The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving decides or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
70 Labor Code, art. 284 (now art. 299) provides:
ARTICLE 284. Disease as ground for termination. — An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
71Rollo, p. 140. Memorandum for Petitioners.
72 Id. at 151. Memorandum for Respondent.
73 Id. at 151-152.
74 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, sec. 9.
75Rollo, p. 32. Court of Appeals Decision.
76 266 Phil. 862 (1990) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division].
77 461 Phil. 720 (2003) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
78 300 Phil. 445 (1994) [Per J. Nocon, Second Division].
79Carandang v. Dulay, 266 Phil. 862, 863-865 (1990) [Per J, Cortes, Third Division],
80 Id. at 865-868.
81 Sta. Catalina College v. National Labor Relations Commission, 461 Phil. 720, 725-726 (2003) [Per J. Carpio Morales. Third Division],
82 Id. at 726-727.
83 Id. at 730.84Philippine Village Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission, 300 Phil. 445, 447-448 (1994) [Per J. Nocon, Second Division],85 Id. at 448.
86 Id. at 449.
87 Id. at 451.
88 Id. at 452.
89 LABOR CODE, art. 279 (now art. 294).
90Philippine Village Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission, 300 Phil. 445, 452 (1994) [Per J. Nocon, Second Division].
91Rollo, p. 72. Labor Arbiter Caday's Decision.
92Rollo, pp. 70-71.
93 LABOR CODE, art. 279, renumbered art. 294, provides:
ARTICLE 294. [279] Security of Tenure. —In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
94Rollo, pp. 183—184.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary