G.R. NO. 169494 -

Ruling

accordingly directed to return to work within 48 hours from receipt of the decision. All other claims, except for the proportionate 13th month pay for 2001, were dismissed for lack of merit. The complaints of Inocencio and Mapua, who failed to sign the position paper for the complainants, were dismissed for lack of interest. By Resolution of September 30, 2003, [6] the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. In upholding the Labor Arbiter's findings and conclusions, the Commission found well-taken the observation that, stripped of herein respondents' attacks on the persons of herein individual petitioners, respondents had presented no material allegation or evidence to controvert the charges against them. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution, with a supplemental manifestation [7] from respondent Quiambao that he was not reinstated to his previous position, as ordered by the Labor Arbiter, but was instead assigned to the company's head office in a "floating status," and that on April 21, 2003, he was served a Notice of Termination of Service because the company was said to be losing heavily and had to retrench to avoid closure. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC by Resolution of April 28, 2004 for lack of merit. [8] On respondents' petition for certiorari, [9] the Court of Appeals, by Decision of April 29, 2005, reversed and set aside the NLRC decision and resolution. The appellate court found the statements of petitioners' witnesses bereft of probative value, there being no clear showing when, where, to and before whom those statements were made, aside from the fact that they were not sworn to before a notary public. As for the audit report of September 19, 2001, the appellate court noted that it failed to state that respondents were responsible for the reported irregularities; and that the procedures on valid dismissals laid down by the Labor Code and the company's Code of Conduct were not religiously followed. Passing on the status of employment of respondents Palermo, Pangilinan, Lacson, Deang and De Guzman who were hired from August 1997 to January 1999, the appellate court held that having served the company for more than a year, they should be considered regular employees, their positions as cashier, receptionist, and waiters being reasonably necessary to the company's usual business. The appellate court held, however, that the award of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit was not in accord with law and jurisprudence in the absence of proof that the dismissal was attended by fraud or bad faith. Petitioners were thus ordered to reinstate respondents to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay them their full back wages, allowances, and other benefits computed from the time their compensation was withheld up to the time of their actual reinstatement. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted, and the resolutions o