G.R. No. 127718 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing complainants charge for illegal dismissal for lack of merit, but ordering respondents thru [sic] its owner-manager or its duly authorized representative to pay complainants separation pay in view of the latters cessation of operations or forced sale, and for 13th month differential pay in the amount, as follows, for: Names Separation Pay 13th Mo. Pay Diff. Total Abelardo Sangadan P23,879.06 N o n e P23,879.06 Luciano Ramos 43,605.24 P711.25 44,316.49 Nestor Tilasan 19,726.18 401.46 20,127.64 Gregorio Tilasan 25,955.50 N o n e 25,955.50 Joaquin Garcia 7,267.54 1,211.25 8,478.79 Rogelio Sabaitan 21,798.00 1,211.25 23,009.25 Castro Leonardo, Jr. 25,955.50 63.10 26,018.60 Pilardo Potenciano 5,191.10 911.25 6,102.35 Ronillo Potenciano 7,267.54 N o n e 7,267.54 Jovencio Bartolome 8,305.76 477.25 8,783.01 Santiago Sabaitan 4,152.88 1,011.25 5,164.13 Juanito Concerman 7,267.54 611.25 7,928.79 George Tumilas 16,611.52 1,011.25 17,622.77 Patrocinio Domingo 2,076.44 1,011.25 3,087.69 Avelino Francisco 3,114.66 1,211.25 4,325.91 Meliton Sangadan 15,573.30 392.50 15,965.80 Alexander Geronimo 15,573.00 N o n e 15,573.30 Joaquin Geronimo 24,917.28 1,211.25 26,128.53 Ramil Macaso 6,229.32 861.25 7,090.57 Lamberto Joven 16,611.62 1,011.25 17,622.77 Cristino Garina 35,299.48 849.65 36,149.13 Sammy Gantaan 14,535.08 961.25 15,496.33 Nacial Ustalan 38,414.14 79.95 38,494.09 Edwin Ustalan 7,267.54 1,011.25 8,278.79 Roland Potenciano 5,191.10 911.25 6,102.35 Rody Concerman 7,267.54 691.25 7,958.79 Elmer Domingo 3,114.66 1,211.25 4,325.91 Aranquez Sangada 45,681.68 711.25 46,392.93 Unding Boleng 31,146.60 N o n e 31,146.60 Eduardo Boleng 35,299.48 759.30 36,058.78 Roberto Paneo 23,876.06 911.25 24,787.31 Henry Sangadan 16,611.52 1,011.25 17,622.77 Total Benefits P586,774.22 "FURTHER, complainants claim for Muslim Holiday, overtime pay and rest day pay should be dismissed for lack of merit, too." [5] Appeal was taken by private respondents to public respondent NLRC. [6] On April 24, 1996, the NLRC issued a resolution, the dispositive portion of which provides: "WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified in favor of the following findings: 1) Respondents are not guilty of illegally dismissing complainants. Respondents cessation of operation was not due to a unilateral action on their part resulting in the cutting off of the employment relationship between the parties. The severance of employer-employee relationship between the parties came about INVOLUNTARILY, as a result of an act of the State. Consequently, complainants are not entitled to any separation pay. 2) The award of 13th month pay differential is, however, Set Aside. Any award of 13th month pay differentials to complainants should be computed strictly based on their reduced pay, equivalent to six (6) hours work, Monday to Friday, pursuant to what the parties agreed in the November 18, 1991 Compromise Agreement." SO O