G.R. No. 140889 - DOROTEA TANONGON,[1], VS. FELICIDAD SAMSON, CASINO OSIN, ALBERTO BERBES AND LUISITO VENUS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED . The decision dated March 9, 1998 of the NLRC, including its resolution dated March 31, 1998 and May 18, 1998 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . No pronouncement as to costs. [5] The challenged Resolution denied the Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts The facts of this case are summarized by the CA in this wise: Cayco Marine Service [CAYCO hereafter] is engaged in the business of hauling oil. It is owned and operated by Iluminada Cayco Olizon (Olizon). Both are [respondents in the NLRC case]. [Respondents] Felicidad Samson, Casiano A. Osin, Alberto Belbes and Luisito Venus were among the employees of [CAYCO and/or Olizon]. On March 9, 1994, [respondents] filed a complaint against [CAYCO and Olizon] for illegal dismissal, [underpayment] of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, rest day pay and leave pay. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, it was reversed by the NLRC. It ruled: PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the labor arbiter dated 17 April 1995 is hereby SET ASIDE. Accordingly, [CAYCO and Olizon are] directed to pay the complainants the following: (a) Separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service computed from the dates of hiring of complainants Luisito Venus, Felicidad Samson, Alberto Belbes and Casiano Osin on the various dates of 01 June 1989, 10 March 1962, 01 January 1982, and 01 February 1980, respectively, up to the date of this Decision; (b) Backwages from the dates of dismissal of complainants Luisito Venus, Felicidad Samson, Alberto Belbes and Casiano Osin on 23 June 1991, 31 March 1992, 20 September 1991 and 20 September 1991, respectively, up to the date of this Decision, less earnings elsewhere; (c) Five (5) days service incentive leave pay limited to the three (3) years back from the filing of the complaint. SO RESOLVED. [CAYCO and Olizon] sought reconsideration of the NLRCs decision but it proved futile. On appeal to the Supreme Court, via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the Court resolved to deny the petition for non-compliance with par. 4, Supreme Court Circular 1-88, x x x and also for the failure of [CAYCO and Olizon] to establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. Accordingly, the decision of the NLRC became final and executory on April 29, 1997. On June 25, 1997, the NLRC Research and Investigation Unit submitted to the labor arbiter the judgment award for each [respondent], computed as follows: 1. F. Samson - P 401,931.41 2. L. Venus - P 259,912.80 3. A. Belbes - P 258,854.17 4. C. Osin - - P 271,724.17 P1,192,422.55 On June 24, a writ of execution was issued directing the NLRC sheriff to collect from [CAYCO and Olizon] the aforementioned amount. On August 8, 1997, after the notice of levy/sale on execution of personal property was issued, [CAYCO and/or Olizons] motor tanker was [seized], to be sold at public auction on August