G.R. No. 202086 - NORMAN PANALIGAN, IRENEO VILLAJIN, AND GABRIEL PENILLA, VS. PHYVITA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents to pay the complainants the sum of P29,000.00 each, or the aggregate sum of P87,000.00 as salary differential. All other claims, including the charge of illegal dismissal are dismissed for lack of merit. [7] Upon appeal by PANALIGAN, et al. , the aforementioned ruling was reversed and set aside by the NLRC in its Decision dated June 9, 2009. The NLRC arrived at the conclusion that PANALIGAN, et al. , were illegally dismissed from employment, thus, ordering the following: ACCORDINGLY, the appealed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is ENTERED declaring complainants to be illegally terminated whereby respondent-appellees Starfleet Reflex Zone/Jorge Rafols and [Joy] Ting liable to pay complainants their separation pay in the amount of Php69,524.00, Php69,524.00 and Php69,524.00 and; backwages in the amount of Php473,425.17, Php473,425.17 and Php473,425.17, respectively. Further, respondents are ordered to pay complainants their salary differentials in the amount of Php48,251.84, Php48,251.84 and Php48,251.84, respectively. And, the amount of Php6,000.00, Php6,000.00 and Php6,000.00, representing their respective unpaid salaries for the period of April 1-28, 2005. [8] The NLRC subsequently denied PHYVITA's motion for reconsideration through a Resolution dated September 25, 2009. Thus, PHYVITA elevated this case to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the NLRC issuances and reinstated the July 31, 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, to wit: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 09 June 2009 and Resolution 25 September 2009 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated 31 July 2007 of Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera is hereby REINSTATED. [9] A motion for reconsideration filed by PANALIGAN, et al. , was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated May 29, 2012. Hence, PANALIGAN, et al. , filed the present petition with this Court relying on the following grounds in support of the same: I. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AWARD FOR SALARY DIFFERENTIALS AND UNPAID SALARIES WHEN THE BASIS FOR THE SAME WAS NOT EVEN DISCUSSED IN ITS DECISION. II. WITH UTMOST DEFERENCE, THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PROVEN THE LEGALITY OF PETITIONERS' DISMISSAL DUE TO SERIOUS MISCONDUCT DESPITE THE LACK OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE SHOWING THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEGED INCIDENT OF THEFT AND THE LACK OF CONCRETE PROOF THAT THE PAYROLLS WERE PART OF THE STOLEN ITEMS. III. WITH UTMOST DEFERENCE, THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PROVEN THE LEGALITY OF PETITIONERS' DISMISSAL DUE TO LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS SIMULATED