G.R. No. 231859 - GERARDO C. ROXAS, VS. BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. AND/OR JOSELITO S. TENGCO (OWNER).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, having failed to establish by substantial evidence the just causes for Roxas's termination, it was error for the CA to not find grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in holding that the dismissal was valid. In this regard, Article 294 [61] of the Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him, which in this case is reckoned from the time of his illegal dismissal on July 21, 2015, up to the time of his actual reinstatement. However, if reinstatement is no longer possible, the employer has the option of paying the employee his separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Considering the length of time that had passed since the controversy started and the existing regulation on the use of buses that has affected respondents' operations, there is a need to remand the case to the NLRC to determine if Roxas's reinstatement, as consistently prayed for, is still viable under the circumstances. On the other hand, with respect to Roxas's claim for 13 th month pay, the same is not wan-anted since Section 3 (e) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 expressly exempted from payment of 13 th month pay "[ e ] mployers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof, except where the workers are paid on piece-rate basis in which case the employer shall be covered by this issuance insofar as such workers are concerned ." Likewise, the Court finds no basis to award Roxas's claim for illegal deductions as the same was not substantiated. The same holds true for the claim of moral and exemplary damages. It is worthy to point out that floral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy; while exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. [62] The person claiming damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith. Here, Roxas failed to establish that respondents were motivated by ill will or that his dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. Nevertheless, since Roxas was compelled to litigate to enforce his rights and protect his interests, he is entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award due him in accordance with Article 111 of the Labor Code and Article 2208 of the Civil Code. [63] WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The Decision date