G.R. No. 128425 - CBL TRANSIT, INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR ARBITER MANUEL R. CADAY, BERNARDO BERNALES, ALESEO CURADA, WILLIAM BORROMEO, AUGUSTO SORILLA, TERESITA CURADA, GERONIMO ENCIO, ROBERTO MERLIN, PACITA ESPINOSA, VENERACION TEANO, JOSE BARCEBAL, TERESITA GAN & MAR

Ruling

Wherefore, premises considered, respondent is hereby ordered to deposit the amount of P782,107.30, as computed by the Acting Chief Research and Information Unit of this Office, to the cashier of this office within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, otherwise upon failure to comply with the same, the necessary Writ of Execution will be issued. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it altered the final decision of this Court by changing CBL Transit Inc. to CBL Transit, Inc./California Bus Lines, Inc. Petitioner insists that California Bus Lines, Inc. is a different corporation and was never a party in this case. We note that the instant petition is a clear attempt by petitioner to re-litigate issues already passed upon and definitively resolved by this Court in G.R. No. 11294. The following excerpt of our Resolution dated September 12, 1994 [8] needs no further elaboration: Before this Court, petitioner claims that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) holding that private respondents are entitled to separation pay; (ii) disregarding the evidence adduced by petitioner to show that it had ceased operations because of bankruptcy; and (iii) finding that CBL Transit, Inc., is the same as California Bus Lines, Inc. Deliberating on the instant Petition for Certiorari and the separate comments filed by private respondents and public respondent through the Solicitor General, the Court considers that petitioner has failed to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent NLRC in rendering the questioned decision of 9 December 1991 and its resolution of 29 October 1993. There is no dispute that the cessation of operations of an establishment due to serious business losses is a just cause for terminating the services of employees. In such a situation, it would be unfair, and useless, to hold an employer who is bankrupt, liable for separation pay. However, the law is clear that the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer (Article 277, Labor Code). In other words, the fact of serious business reverses or financial losses and the consequent closure of the establishment must be sufficiently shown by the employer (Balasbas vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 212 SCRA 803 [1992]). The NLRC held that nothing in the records of the case supported petitioners allegation that it had gone bankrupt and ceased to operate since 31 January 1991. We agree that petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proof resting on it. Simply asserting a state of insolvency is not enough to show serious financial losses. The petitioners did not even bother to give notice to the DOLE and to its employees that it was closing its business due to serious financial reverses as required by Article 283 of the Labo