G.R. NO. 152308 - ACESITE CORPORATION, HOLIDAY INN, JOHANN ANGERBAUER AND PHIL KENNEDY, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) AND LEO A. GONZALES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac dated February 7, 2000 is hereby, REVERSED. Respondents are hereby ordered: 1) to immediately reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights; 2) to pay complainant backwages beginning for the period May 16, 1998, until he is actually reinstated, inclusive of all his other fringe benefits or their monetary equivalent; 3) to pay complainant the sum of P800,000.00 pesos as moral damages and the equal amount of P800,000.00 as and for exemplary damages ; 4) to pay ten (10) per cent attorneys fees . (Underscoring supplied) Acesite thereupon filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals anchored on the following grounds: THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE LABOR ARBITER THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY DISMISSED FOR JUST CAUSE[.] THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE LABOR ARBITER THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS AFFORDED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS[.] THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE LABOR ARBITER THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO HIS MONEY CLAIMS[.] THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT INCLUDED PETITIONERS PHIL KENNEDY AND JOHANN ANGERBAUER LIABLE TO THE RESPONDENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THEY ARE MERE EMPLOYEES OF THE HOTEL[.] [17] By Decision [18] of October 12, 2001, the Court of Appeals, finding that Gonzales was illegally dismissed, affirmed with modification the NLRC decision: After a careful study of the evidence on record and of the allegations of both parties, this Court is convinced that private respondent Gonzales was illegally dismissed . The parties hereto contest the receipt by private respondent Gonzales of the first telegram sent by petitioner Angerbauer. Since the evidence of petitioners is merely a piece of paper supposedly containing the contents of the telegram sent to the former, We cannot accept the same as proof that indeed a telegram was sent and was thereafter received by private respondent Gonzales. The burden of proof is upon petitioners to show that indeed the latter received the same . Insofar as private respondent Gonzales failure to report for work on May 1, 1998, we give credence to the medical certificate he submitted to prove that he was indeed indisposed during the period in controversy especially in the light of the fact that the same was issued by his rival in the political arena, Dr. Laureano C. Gonzales, Jr., We do not think Dr. Gonzales who likewise ran for the same elective position as herein private respondent Gonzales would help him cover up his absences if he really did not treat the latter and had him under his care. Thus, his failure to report for work on Ma y 1, 1998 was justified . As to the third telegram, the final notice by