G.R. No. 181503 - BIO QUEST MARKETING INC. AND/OR JOSE L. CO, VS. EDMUND REY. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly disposed: WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the respondents Bio [Q]uest Marketing, Inc. and/or Jose L. Co to: 1) reinstate complainant Edmund Rey to his former position without loss of seniority rights; and 2) pay complainant the amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND & TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN PESOS & 20/100 (P108,217.20) representing his backwages, holiday pay, 13 th month pay and attorney's fees. All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. [8] (Emphasis in the original) Except with respect to the award of holiday pay which it deleted, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling by Decision of November 23, 2005. [9] However, on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, the NLRC, by Decision of June 19, 2006, [10] held that petitioner was able to prove that it undertook a valid retrenchment program, as imminent and not actual losses suffices to justify such, but that "while [herein petitioner] may have exercised its sound judgment in doing away with the services of [herein respondent], the latter should be entitled to some form of reward for all the dedication, hard work and loyalty he has exhibited during his years of service with [herein petitioner]." It thus VACATED its Decision of November 23, 2005 and disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, the respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby, GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision sought to be reconsidered is hereby, VACATED and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby entered ordering the respondent to pay the complainant separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service . [11] (Underscoring supplied) Respondent thus elevated the case via Certiorari [12] to the Court of Appeals which, by Decision of September 28, 2007, [13] held that herein petitioner "failed to prove convincingly that [herein respondent] was validly terminated on account of retrenchment" and accordingly reversed and set aside the decision of the NLRC, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE , the foregoing considered, the instant petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, private respondents are ordered to: Reinstate petitioner to his former position without loss of seniority rights and if this is no longer possible, to pay him: (a) separation pay, in addition to; (b) backwages equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the finality of this decision; (c) his 13 th month pay in the amount of Twenty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Seven Pesos and 68/100 (P28,507.68), as computed by the Labor Arbiter. Let this case be REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the amounts due petitioner. [14] (Emphasis in the original) Petitioner's motion for reconsideration [15] having been denied by the appellate court by Resolution of January 23, 2008, [16] petitioner comes before this Court via petition for review on certiorari, advancing the following argument: THE HONORABLE COUR