G.R. No. 98137 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER ROLANDO D. GAMBITO, AND REYNATO B. AGUINALDO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to reinstate the complainant to his former position as bus conductor and to pay his backwages from September 18, 1988 up to his actual reinstatement. In case reinstatement is no longer possible, respondent is ordered to pay his separation pay computed at one month salary including other benefits/commissions, for every year of service. Thus, respondent should pay the complainant the following: BACKWAGES Period covered: September 18, 1988 up to November 30, 1989 or an equivalent of 382 working days. I. Working Days Covered ....................................... 382 days II. Multiplied by the basic rate of............................... x P77.35 III. Equals backwages due.......................................... P29,547.00 NOTE: Computation of backwages does not include backwages from November 30, 1989 up to actual reinstatement by respondent. SEPARATION PAY IN CASE REINSTATEMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE I. Salary per day ............................................ P 77.35 per day II. Multiplied by working days per month.......... x 26 days III. Equals salary per month............................... P 2,011.00 IV. Multiplied by years of service .................. x 21 years V. Equals separation pay of............................. P42,231.00 NOTE: A fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one whole year (Section 9, Rule I, Book VI, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code). S U M M A R Y A. Backwages P29,547.00 B. Separation Pay 42,231.00 TOTAL P71,778.00 Respondent is likewise ordered to pay P5,000.00 as attorneys fees to complainants counsel whose services he was forced to engage to assist him in this case. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which, on October 29, 1990, affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision with the modification that the alternative reliefs of separation pay and attorneys fees were deleted and, instead, petitioners reinstatement with backwages for one year was ordered. [3] Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied on February 28, 1991. [4] Hence this petition. Petitioner contends that it complied with the twin requirements of showing just cause and due process before dismissing private respondent. With respect to the requirement of due process, it claims that private respondent was notified of the charges against him by means of a memorandum dated September 20, 1988, and that he was duly heard during a formal investigation held on September 26, 1988. Petitioner alleges that private respondent was dismissed on May 3, 1989, upon the service on him of a termination notice. With respect to the finding of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter that dismissal was a harsh penalty and that imposition of the penalty was unreasonable and baseless, petitioner points to Aguinaldos record of violations of company rules for which he was reprimanded and warned, thus justifying a finding that petitioner was guilty of (1) serious misco