G.R. No. 92772 - SAN MIGUEL JEEPNEY SERVICE AND MAMERTO GALACE, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EDELBERTO PADUA AND 23 OTHERS,[1].

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents to pay complainants Edna Farin, Brainly Aglibot and Abner Martinez the differentials for underpayment of wages, as well as, their severance pay, equivalent to one-half (1/2) month for every year of service. Respondents are further ordered to extend by way of financial assistance in the amount of P1,000.00 each or a total of P19,000.00." On appeal, the respondent Commission modified the arbiters ruling, holding that "all the complainants are regular employees in the contemplation of Article 281 (now Art. 280) of the Labor Code, which provides that employment shall be deemed regular when the employee performs activities which are usually necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade ""; respondent Commission thus ruled that the complainants are entitled to separation pay of one-half month for every year of service, by virtue of the non-renewal of the transportation contract with the naval base. However, finding that the complainants did not ask for financial assistance, the NLRC deleted the award of P1,000.00 for the each of the complainants. The fallo of the Commissions Resolution states: [6] "WHEREFORE, in the light of the preceding disquisition, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified, in that the award of P1,000.00 each to the complainants for financial assistance is deleted. The respondent is ordered to pay all the complainants their separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month for every year of service." Dissatisfied, petitioners brought this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on April 19, 1990. The Issues The issues raised by petitioners are as follows: [7] "I The respondent NLRC acted in grave abuse of its discretion in awarding separation pay in favor of respondents, such award not being warranted by the facts and the law. II Assuming arguendo that such award of separation pay is warranted by law, the respondent NLRC nevertheless gravely abused its discretion in making said award in the absence of the requisite factual basis therefor." Petitioners concede that the NLRC may have been correct after all in holding that complainants/private respondents were regular employees, for they acknowledged albeit grudgingly that "the above ruling seems to be tinged with reason and authority". Nevertheless, they contend that they cannot be held liable for separation pay for "petitioner SMJS had been experiencing financial reverses since 1986". [8] Petitioners cited the figures provided by petitioner Galace showing "sliding incomes": [9] "Our gross receipt in 1985 amounted to .. P846,459.25 Our gross receipt in 1986 amounted to ... 676,748.75 So, our income decreased in 1986 by ..... P169,710.50 Our gross income in 1986 was ............ P 676,748.75 Our gross income in 1987 was ............ 534,204.71 Our income decreased in 1987 by ......... P142,544.04" Petitioners also fault the NLRC for acknowledging in its findings of fac