G.R. NO. 159577 - CHARLITO PEÑARANDA, VS. BAGANGA PLYWOOD CORPORATION AND HUDSON CHUA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED ." [4] The latter Resolution denied reconsideration. On the other hand, the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) challenged in the CA disposed as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter below awarding overtime pay and premium pay for rest day to complainant is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE , and the complaint in the above-entitled case dismissed for lack of merit. [5] The Facts Sometime in June 1999, Petitioner Charlito Peñaranda was hired as an employee of Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. [6] In May 2001, Peñaranda filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against BPC and its general manager, Hudson Chua, before the NLRC. [7] After the parties failed to settle amicably, the labor arbiter [8] directed the parties to file their position papers and submit supporting documents. [9] Their respective allegations are summarized by the labor arbiter as follows: "[Peñaranda] through counsel in his position paper alleges that he was employed by respondent [Baganga] on March 15, 1999 with a monthly salary of P5,000.00 as Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer until he was illegally terminated on December 19, 2000. Further, [he] alleges that his services [were] terminated without the benefit of due process and valid grounds in accordance with law. Furthermore, he was not paid his overtime pay, premium pay for working during holidays/rest days, night shift differentials and finally claims for payment of damages and attorney's fees having been forced to litigate the present complaint. "Upon the other hand, respondent [BPC] is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws and is represented herein by its General Manager HUDSON CHUA, [the] individual respondent. Respondents thru counsel allege that complainant's separation from service was done pursuant to Art. 283 of the Labor Code. The respondent [BPC] was on temporary closure due to repair and general maintenance and it applied for clearance with the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. XI to shut down and to dismiss employees (par. 2 position paper). And due to the insistence of herein complainant he was paid his separation benefits (Annexes C and D, ibid). Consequently, when respondent [BPC] partially reopened in January 2001, [Peñaranda] failed to reapply. Hence, he was not terminated from employment much less illegally. He opted to severe employment when he insisted payment of his separation benefits. Furthermore, being a managerial employee he is not entitled to overtime pay and if ever he rendered services beyond the normal hours of work, [there] was no office order/or authorization for him to do so. Finally, respondents allege that the claim for damages has no legal and factual basis and that the instant complaint must necessarily fail f