G.R. No. 106648 - AUDION ELECTRIC CO., INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NICOLAS MADOLID. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent Audion Electric Co., Inc. and/or Robert S. Coran, Manager: to reinstate complainant Nicolas Madolid to his former position with full backwages from the date of his dismissal on August 15, 1989 up to the signing of this decision without loss of seniority rights in the amount of P34,710.00; to pay complainant his overtime pay for the period March 16 to April 3, 1989 in the amount of P 765.63; to pay complainant his project allowances as follows: April 16, 1989 to April 30, 1989 P30.00 May 1 to May 15, 1989 P45.00 May 16 to May 31, 1989 P30.00 June 1 to June 15, 1989 P45.00 June 16 to June 30, 1989 P30.00 July 1 to July 15, 1989 P30.00 July 16 to July 31, 1989 P45.00 to pay complainant the minimum wage increase adjustment from August 1 to 14, 1989 in the amount of P256.50; to pay complainant his proportionate 13 th month pay from January to May 1988 in the amount of P700.00; to pay complainant moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00; and to pay attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award of complainant." [4] Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission which rendered the questioned Resolution dated March 24, 1992 dismissing the appeal. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied by the NLRC in its Order dated July 31, 1992. Petitioner is now before us raising the following issues: I THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER DIRECTING THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO HIS FORMER POSITION WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS AND WITH BACKWAGES AMOUNTING TO P34,710.00 NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS MERELY A PROJECT EMPLOYEE. II THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED THE CLAIM FOR OVERTIME PAY TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHEN NO OVERTIME WORK WAS RENDERED. III THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED THE CLAIMS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT FOR PROJECT ALLOWANCES, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ADJUSTMENT AND PROPORTIONATE 13TH MONTH PAY WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME. IV THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT IT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS. V THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DID NOT TOUCH UPON MUCH LESS DISCUSS THE PETITIONER'S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORS IN ITS APPEAL. VI THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF P20,000 AS WELL AS ATTORNEY'S FEES CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME ARE WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS. [5] The core issues presented before us are (a) whether the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that private respondent was a regular employee and not a project employee, (b) whether petitioner was denied due process when all th