G.R. NO. 158244 - ERNESTO PONCE AND MANUEL C. BALIGNASAY, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), INNODATA PHILIPPINES CORP., INNODATA PROCESSING CORP. (INNODATA CORPORATION) AND TODD SOLOMON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate complainants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and benefits with full back wages computed from the time of their illegal dismissal up to their actual reinstatement which up to this promulgation already amounted to, to wit: ERNESTO PONCE Php. 122,184.44 MANUEL BALIGNASAY 112,060.00 ---------------------- Php 234,244.48 plus attorney's fees in the amount of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR (Php23, 424.44) PESOS AND 44/100. [12] In a Decision [13] dated 28 September 2001, the Second Division of the NLRC reversed the arbiter's decision and held that petitioners were validly terminated for having exceeded the maximum allowable absences as provided in the 1998 Revised Policy, the legality of which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The NLRC found that despite being apprised of the implementation of the 1998 Revised Policy effective 01 January 1998, each of the petitioners still incurred a total of 35 unexcused absences for the year 1998 prior to their removal in August of that year. Nonetheless, as an act of justice following case precedents, they were awarded financial assistance equivalent to one-half (1/2) month's salary for every year of service. The NLRC disposed as follows: Wherefore, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 29 December 1999, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING the instant case for lack of merit. However, respondents are hereby ordered to pay complainants financial assistance in the amount of one-half month pay for every year of service. [14] Both parties moved to reconsider the NLRC Decision. It appears, however, that the NLRC had, for reasons unknown, overlooked the motion for reconsideration [15] filed by petitioners and received by the NLRC on 17 October 2001 because, on 20 November 2001, the NLRC denied only the motion for reconsideration filed by Innodata, without any mention as to that of petitioners. The Resolution reads: After due consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent on October 22, 2001, from the Decision of September 28, 2001, the Commission (Second Division) resolved to deny the same for lack of merit. [Emphasis supplied.] [16] Within the reglementary period to file an appeal, Innodata proceeded to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In their Comment to Innodata's petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, however, petitioners argued that the petition was prematurely filed as their motion for reconsideration was still pending with the NLRC. Petitioners reiterated that they were illegally dismissed and prayed for the dismissal of the petition and for other equitable reliefs. [17] The Court of Appeals did not dwell on the prematurity issue and proceeded to rule on the merits of the petition. On 14 November 2002, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the NLRC, disposing as fo