G.R. No. 194001 - MARIA VILMA G. DOCTOR AND JAIME LAO, JR., VS. NII ENTERPRISES AND/OR MRS. NILDA C. IGNACIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby issued finding the dismissal illegal and ordering respondents to pay [petitioners] backwages and separation pay as follows: VILMA DOCTOR: Backwages- P80,000.00 (P7,500.00 x 12 mos = (P80,000.00) Separation Pay - P67,500.00 (P7,500.00 x 9 = P67,500.00) JAIME LAO, JR.: Backwages- P80,000.00 (P7,500.00 x 12 mos = (P80,000.00) Separation Pay - P67,500.00 (P7,500.00 x 9 = P67,500.00) All other claims are dismissed for lack ofmerit. [10] Respondents filed before the NLRC an appeal of the foregoing judgment of the Labor Arbiter, which was docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 045354-05. Respondents asserted that there had been no illegal dismissal as petitioners were never issued notices of termination. Respondents reiterated that petitioner Doctor did not report for work after her altercation with respondent Ignacio, and instead filed a complaint for threat and slander against respondent Ignacio before the barangay . Only when no amicable settlement was reached before the barangay did petitioner Doctor proceed to file her complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents before the NLRC. Respondents further argued that they had no reason to terminate petitioner Lao's services and that the latter simply joined the complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC even though he was not involved in the dispute between respondent Ignacio and petitioner Doctor. Respondents contended that petitioners were not entitled to separation pay since they were not terminated from employment. Nevertheless, assuming that petitioners were illegally dismissed, respondents maintained that the Labor Arbiter's award of separation pay in petitioners' favor was excessive because such pay should be computed at only one-half (1/2)-month pay, not one (1)-month pay, for every year of service and petitioner Lao worked for respondents for eight (8) years, not nine (9) years. In its Decision dated February 1, 2008, the NLRC ruled: WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondents' appeal is partially granted. Accordingly, the appealed Decision is hereby MODIFIED to the extent that the award of separation pay to Jaime Lao shall cover only a total of eight (8) years. All other dispositions are hereby AFFIRMED . [11] Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [12] which the NLRC denied in a Resolution [13] dated November 27, 2008. Respondents filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as CA­-G.R. SP No. 107497, averring grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of the NLRC in issuing its Decision dated February 1, 2008 and Resolution dated November 27, 2008. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on April 23, 2010 finding respondents' Petition meritorious. The appellate court stressed that while the employer has the burden in illegal dismissal cases of proving that the termination was for valid or authorized cause, the emp