G.R. No. 119512 - ST. MICHAEL ACADEMY AND SISTER PATRICIA AGUILAR, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HERMIE BOLOSIÑO, EDERLINDA REBADULLA, FERLIZA GOLO, IMELDA ALERIA, BERNARDITA OSERRAOS, CEFERINA DACLAG AND JOSEPHINE DELORINO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the complainants are hereby granted the following: x x x SUMMARY 1. Herme Bolosino P87,892.74 2. Ederlinda Rebadulla 11,455.92 3. Ferliza Golo 18,350.56 4. Imelda Aleria 11,664.22 5. Bernardita Oserraos 83,942.52 6. Ceferina Daclag 100,822.72 7. Josephine Delorino 6,146.74 P320,275.42 x x x [22] Petitioners now assail before this Court the decision of the respondent Commission for having been made with grave abuse of discretion, viz.: I The NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that private respondents Delorino, Bolosino, Daclag, Rebadulla, and Golo were not paid their 13th month pay. II The NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it awarded vacation leave pay to the private respondents. III The NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding and concluding that private respondents were underpaid applicable wage orders. IV The NLRC gravely abused its discretion and seriously erred in finding that petitioners forced private respondents Bolosino, Daclag and Oserraos to resign from the service. V The NLRC gravely abused its discretion in awarding separation pay and backwages to private respondents Bolosino, Daclag and Oserraos. VI Granting without admitting the propriety of the award of backwages, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to apply the rule laid down in Ferrer v. NLRC (224 SCRA 410). VII The NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it disregarded prescribed rules of procedure repeatedly violated by private respondents. We affirm with modification. [23] Errors I, II and III pertain to the monetary awards granted by the public respondent and will be discussed under the issue of whether or not private respondents are entitled to the payment of salary differentials, 13th month pay, vacation leave pay and service incentive leave pay. Errors IV, V and VI revolve on the issue of whether or not private respondents Bolosiño, Daclag and Oserraos were illegally dismissed by being forced to resign. Error VII raises the issue of whether or not private respondents failure to follow the rules of procedure in labor cases violated petitioners right to due process. I Public respondent NLRC modified the Labor Arbiters monetary awards to respondents by applying the three-year prescriptive period on several money claims and deleting the award of service incentive leave pay as well as moral and exemplary damages. Not satisfied, petitioners maintain that public respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the Labor Arbiters award of 13th month pay and unpaid vacation leave pay to the private respondents despite the latters failure to specifically pray for them in their pleadings. Petitioners contend that a prayer for such other benefits provided by the Labor Code should be limited to those benefits which follow as a matter of course based on the allegations of the parties and the evidence presented. They urge that it should clearly appear that a party is entitled to the benefit but, through inadve