G.R. No. 139876 - WILLIAM TIU AND/OR THE ROUGH RIDERS, VS. JULIO PASAOL, SR. AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4TH DIVISION WITH HON. IRENEA CENIZA AS THE PRESIDING COMMISSIONER. - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore premises considered, the complaint for illegal dismissal and other money claims are hereby ordered dismissed. Respondent William Tiu is however ordered to pay complainant the sum of P39,600 representing his retirement pay differentials. [8] Both parties appealed to the NLRC. Private respondent Pasaol questioned the Arbiters finding that he was paid correct wages and other labor standard benefits. Petitioners, on the other hand, questioned the Arbiters computation of private respondents retirement benefits. The NLRC affirmed with modification the above Arbiters decision. The NLRC affirmed the Arbiters finding that private respondent was paid the correct wages and other labor standard benefits, but differed with the Arbiter on the amount of retirement benefits already received by and still due to private respondent. The NLRC used P105, the amount as reflected in private respondents voucher, as the average daily rate. However, it gave more evidentiary weight to the clearance slip than the voucher in computing the retirement pay differentials. Thus, it concluded that petitioners only paid private respondent P3,284 as retirement benefits and there was a balance of P34,516 remaining, to wit: But then, truth comes from the most unexpected sources. We note that in the Clearance signed by the complainant and respondent respectively, what appears to have been paid to the complainant was only the sum of P3,284.00. Indeed, a clearance is the final statement of an employees receivables and/or liabilities as the case may be. We are thus inclined to give more evidentiary weight to this document as against the vouchers showing full payment of complainants retirement benefits. After all, doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of labor. That notwithstanding, We agree with the respondents that the basis of complainants retirement benefits should be P105.00. We are satisfied with respondents explanation that the amount reflected as service incentive leave in the vouchers represents fifteen (15) days in accordance with their policy. Accordingly, complainants retirement benefits pursuant to R.A. 7641 is recomputed as follows: P105.00 x 15 days salary = P1,575.00 105.00 x 5 days SILP = 525.00 105.00 x 30 days =3,150/12= 262.50 P2, 362.50 P2,362.50 x 16 years = 37,800.00 Less: Amount received 3,284.00 Retirement Pay Differentials = P34,516.00 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Respondent William Tiu is hereby ordered to pay complainant Julio Pasaol, Sr. the sum of Thirty Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixteen (P34,516.00) Pesos as retirement pay differentials. [9] Petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court after the denial of his motion for reconsideration in the NLRC. However, in a Resolution dated November 25, 1998 [10] , we referred the case to the Court of Appeals in accordance with our r