G.R. NO. 152459 - EMELITA LEONARDO, CONRADO BARGAMENTO, EMELITA NUÑEZ, RODOLFO GRABAN, AND ROBERTO GRABAN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the complainants and against respondents Balagtas Telephone System and/or Domingo de Asis and Digital Telecommunications Phils., Inc. ordering the latter, jointly and severally as follows: To pay the sum of P14,950.00 representing the unpaid salaries of all the five (5) complainants for the month of February 1994; To pay another sum of P4,486.44 representing the unpaid overtime pay of complainants Emelita Leonardo, Conrado Bargamento and Emelita Nuñez for February 1994; To pay the sum of P71,400.00 as salary differential of the complainants; To pay the backwages of all complainants from the date they were dismissed on February 28, 1994 up to this writing computed in the sum total of P224,250.00, less their separation pay which they have received; To pay the sum of P31,508.64 as attorney's fees which is equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the amount of the award; and To immediately reinstate all the complainants to their former or equivalent positions under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to their dismissal or separation including payment of their prevailing basic salaries and all other benefits or at the option of the employer merely reinstate in the payroll also with the payment of their salaries and all other benefits in accordance with Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715. Respondents are further ordered to submit upon receipt hereof their compliance with the reinstatement aspect. SO DECIDED. [10] DIGITEL appealed the Labor Arbiter's Decision before the NLRC. In its 29 December 1997 Decision, [11] the NLRC dismissed the appeal. DIGITEL moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC Decision. In its 29 July 1998 Decision, [12] the NLRC denied DIGITEL's motion for reconsideration. DIGITEL filed a petition for review before this Court. In its 2 December 1998 Resolution, this Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC . [13] The Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its 29 June 2001 Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the NLRC Decision insofar as it held DIGITEL severally liable with BALTEL and Domingo de Asis. The Court of Appeals ruled that DIGITEL is not the successor-in-interest of BALTEL. The Court of Appeals held that the records do not show that DIGITEL became the absolute owner of BALTEL, or that DIGITEL absorbed BALTEL's employees. The Court of Appeals further ruled that there was no showing that DIGITEL acquired BALTEL's franchise. The Court of Appeals ruled: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE insofar as it held petitioner jointly and severally liable with Balagtas Telephone Company and Domingo de Asis for the obligations of the two to private respondents, with the result that private respondents' complaint against petitioner before the labor arbiter is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.