G.R. No. 157488 - SOLGUS CORPORATION, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DIOSDADO TELIN AND ALEJANDRE ALAGOS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaints of Diosdado Telin, Alejandro Alagos, Edwin Lacerna and Gerry Emano with prejudice. Additionally, the complaint of Jimmy Menor, Jr. and that of Dominador Vega and Armando Ballon elsewhere mentioned in this decision are likewise dismissed with prejudice. However, respondent Solgus Corporation is hereby ordered to pay complainants Garry Soriano and Roldan Deseo their respective salary differentials in accordance with the computation of the monetary awards due the said complainants hereunder indicated, as follows: Garry Soriano 9/28/93 - 12/15/93 = 2.60 mos. P4,402.12 - P3,800.00 = P602.12 P602.12 x 2.60 mos. P 1,565.51 12/16/93 - 1/11/94 = .90 mos. P5,016.91 - P3,800.00 = P1,216.91 P1,216.91 x .90 mos. 1,095.21 Ten (10%) percent Attorney's Fees 266.07 P 2,926.79 Roldan Deseo 9/27/93 - 12/12/93 = 2.53 mos. P4,402.12 - P3,600.00 = P802.12 P802.12 x 2.53 mos. P 2,029.36 12/13/93 - 12/28/93 = .53 mos. P5,016.91 - P3,200.00 = P1,816.91 P1,816.91 x .53 mos. 962.96 Ten (10%) percent Attorney's Fees 299.23 P 3,291.55 Grand Total P 6,218.34 ======= All other claims of said complainants are dismissed for lack of merit. [19] In the challenged decision, the Labor Arbiter found: (1) that the complaints of Telin, Alagos, Emano, Ballon, Menor, and Lacerna should be dismissed due to the Affidavits of Desistance; [20] that the complaint of Vega had been dismissed earlier for lack of interest to prosecute; [21] (2) that complainants Soriano and Deseo were not entitled to security of tenure because they were employed by Solgus for less than six months and were therefore not regular employees; (3) that, moreover, Soriano and Deseo failed to impugn the respondents' contention that they were the subjects of several complainants of its clients and may therefore be considered to have abandoned and/or relinquished their jobs; and (4) that complainants Soriano and Deseo may recover salary differentials because they were paid less than the minimum wage rate established by law, but, due to insufficient evidence, they may not recover overtime pay and other benefits. From the Labor Arbiter's decision, the complainants filed a Memorandum of Appeal [22] dated 22 December 1997 to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). However, only complainants Telin and Alagos affixed their signatures thereon. In their appeal, the complainants denied executing the Affidavits of Desistance. They likewise complained that they were not furnished a copy of the 29 August 1997 Memorandum of Solgus where the affidavits were attached. They claimed that had they been given a copy, they would have timely repudiated the same. [23] In a Decision [24] dated 27 November 1998, the NLRC held: WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED. The respondents are hereby ordered to REINSTATE the complainants-appellants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and to pay them backwages and other be