G.R. NO. 168664 - LIGAYA R. MACHICA, ROSSINI D. LOSABE, ANALYN V. BASAS, HARRY G. FLORES, CESAR M. LERO, NILO S. VILLARMENTE, ANNABELLA E. FLORES AND RALPH O. TAPADO, VS. ROOSEVELT SERVICES CENTER, INC., AND/OR ODILON P. DIZON, SUBSTITUTED BY LITO/ANGELITO DIZON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Lib

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered declaring that complainants were illegally dismissed, and ordering respondents to solidarily pay complainants full backwages, underpayment, illegally deducted amounts, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees as discussed above. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. [13] For their part, RSCI and Dizon asserted that the complainants were not dismissed from their employment, but were merely told to take three to seven days off to decide whether to agree to share in the loss sustained by RSCI. They investigated the reported anomalous transactions and confirmed that, indeed, employees of SFMC and the complainants had, for six months, conspired to commit the acts complained of. [14] They even sought the help of the Barangay Lupon so that the contents of the Memorandum could be explained to the complainants, but the scheduled conference had to be cancelled due to the filing of the complaints for illegal dismissal. They claimed that the complainants were never dismissed but stopped reporting for work and had, thus, abandoned their posts. [15] On October 10, 2002, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered judgment [16] in favor of the complainants. He declared that given the factual backdrop, it is more in consonance with logic and ordinary human experience that complainants were indeed dismissed by respondent Dizon, and that the latter's claim that complainants were only given three to seven days to study the Memorandum was a mere afterthought. Respondent Dizon had suspected that the complainants were in cahoots with SFMC's employees when they refused to sign the Memorandum. It was not unlikely for Dizon to terminate complainants immediately. The decretal portion of the Decision [17] reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that complainants were illegally dismissed, and ordering respondents to reinstate complainants to their former positions, and to pay them (for purposes of appeal, backwages is tentatively computed): a. LIGAYA MACHICA: 1. Backwages from March 23, 2001 to August 23, 2001 (P218.00 x 26 days x 17 mos) P96,356.00 2. 13th month pay (96,356/12 mos.) 8,029.66 3. Illegal deduction 500.00 4. Moral damages 10,000.00 5. Exemplary damages 5,000.00 b. Rossini Losabe, Analyn V. BasaR, Harry G. Flores, CeAsar M. Lero, Nilo S. Villarmente, Annabella E. Flores and Ralph Q. Tapado, (For each of them): 1. Backwages from March 26, 2001 to August 26, 2001 (P218.00 x 26 days x 17 mos. x complainants)...... P674,492.00 2. 13th month pay (P8,029.66 x 7 complainants)...... 56,207.62 3. Illegal deduction (P500.00 x 7 complainants)........ 3,500.00 4. Moral Damages (P10,000 x 7 complainants)........ 70,000.00 5. Exemplary damages (P5,000.00 x complainants).. 35,000.00 P959,085.28 plus ten percent (10%) of the total award as attorney's fees. SO ORDERED.