G.R. No. 125298 - CMP FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY, INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER CRESENCIANO R. INIEGO, AND FERNANDO CARANTO, RESTY REMITTERE, REYNALDO ROSALES, ANTONIO TAPAR, NARCISO CLARO, SIONY MANOS, BALDO VIODOR AND DAWAY WAHAB. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Libra

Ruling

WHEREFORE xxx the appealed decision is xxx modified. Respondent CMP Federal Security Agency is xxx directed to pay complainants the following: 1. Pay all complainants wage differential(s) in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine and 70/100 (P128,989.70) as well as holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, as follows: FERNANDO CARANTO 13th Month Pay - P3,792.75 Holiday Pay - P1,760.00 Service Incentive Leave Pay - P 590.00 P6,142.75 RESTY REMITTERE 13th Month Pay - P 9,195.49 Holiday Pay - P 3,318.00 Service Incentive Leave Pay - P 1,770.00 P14,283.49 REYNALDO ROSALES 13th Month Pay - P11,280.17 Holiday Pay - P 4,026.00 Service Incentive Leave Pay - P 1,770.00 P17,076.17 ANTONIO TAPAR 13th Month Pay - P10,253.91 Holiday Pay - P 3,355.00 Service Incentive Leave Pay - P 1,770.00 P17,076.17 CLARO NARCISO 13th Month Pay - P 6,186.50 Holiday Pay - P 2,138.00 Service Incentive Leave Pay - P 1,180.00 P 9,504.50 SIONY MANOS 13th Month Pay - P 4,101.83 Holiday Pay - P 1,666.00 Service Incentive Leave Pay - P 1,770.00 P 7,537.83 BALDO VIODOR 13th Month Pay - P11,280.16 Holiday Pay - P 4,026.00 Service Incentive Leave Pay - P 1,770.00 P17,076.16 DAWAY WAHAB 13th Month Pay - P 362.50 Holiday Pay - P 430.00 P 797.50 GRAND TOTAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P87,797.31 2. The individual respondents Carolina Mabanta Piad and Ponciano Mabanta are held liable in their official capacity. 3. The other findings stand affirmed. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the NLRC through its Resolution of 29 November 1995, petitioner CMP now comes to us through the present petition imputing grave abuse of discretion on the NLRC: (a) in holding that private respondent Caranto was illegally dismissed, basing its findings solely on surmises and baseless conclusion that petitioner resorted to retaliatory acts; and, (b) in granting the money claims of private respondents on the unfounded presumption that since petitioner failed to submit its position paper it is deemed to have admitted the charges in the complaint. The issues are: (a) whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that private respondent Fernando Caranto was illegally dismissed by CMP; and, (b) whether in granting all the money claims of private respondents CMP was denied due process. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the NLRC, except when there is grave abuse of discretion, are practically conclusive on this Court. It is only when the NLRC's findings are bereft of any substantial support from the records that the Court may step in and proceed to make its own independent evaluation of the facts. [5] We see no cogent reason to deviate from this rule. On the legality of Caranto's dismissal, the NLRC held - On the other hand, respondent's [CMP] contention that complainant Fernando Caranto abandoned his work is without sufficient basis. The plea of