William R. Wenceslao v. Makati Development Corporation

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Respondent Makati Development Corporation, however, is directed to pay the aggregate sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FOURTEEN & 78/100 PESOS (P118,314.78) representing complainants' prorated 13 th month pay for 2015, as follows: WILLIAM R. WENCESLAO - Php 5,725.72 JEMYLITO M. APIAG - 5,484.52 JOVENAL P. ATAG - 5,484.52 ARNULFO S. DASCO - 5,690.23 CARLITO E. INFANTE - 5,563.84 RENATO A. GUINUE - 5,725.72 ZACARIAS G. TALABOC, JR. - 5,484.52 GEORGE N. TAGUIAM - 5,484.52 RANDY D. ABRENCILLO - 5,484.52 MELECIO B. QUINIMON - 5,243.33 CESAR B. JARANILLA - 5,484.52 RIZALDE R. BARILE - 5,484.52 HERICO A. BUENAVENTE - 5,484.52 JERSON A. TATOY - 5,484.52 MICHAEL L. CASIANO - 5,830.58 FELIX M. DINIA Y - 7,340.66 PEDRO C. DELA CRUZ, JR. - 5,484.52 JHOSEL BOY G. ABAYON - 5,484.52 AUGUSTO L. OCENAR - 5,690.23 MARIO M. FUNELAS - 5,484.52 AVELINO T. QUINONES - 5,690.23 All other claims, including those of complainants Virgilio B. Cristobal, Noel N. Damiasan, James M. Real, Vivencio B. Rodrigo and Alfredo T. Visaya, are hereby denied for lack of merit. The computation hereto attached is made an integral part hereof. [9] On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission ( NLRC ) Fourth Division affirmed [10] in toto the decision [11] of the Labor Arbiter. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision dated 31 May 2016, states: WHEREFORE , considering the foregoing, the appeal filed by the 21 complainants is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the decision rendered by Labor Arbiter Raymund M. Celino on 29 th February 2016 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. [12] The petitioners sought reconsideration of the said decision but it was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution, [13] dated 26 July 2016. Undaunted, the petitioners filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the NLRC for issuing the order affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The CA Ruling The CA dismissed the petition on two grounds: (1) the petition is non-compliant with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; and (2) the petition, on its face, lacks merit for failing to illustrate public respondent's grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in renderinthe assailed 31 May 2016 Decision and 26 July 2016 Resolution. [14] The CA cited the following defects in the petition: the public respondent's assailed 31 May 2016 Decision and 26 July 2016 Resolution are mere photocopies of purported certified true copies thereof; the allegation as to material dates is incomplete; the Labor Arbiter's Decision, the Petitioner's Appeal Memorandum and Motion for Reconsideration which are all referred to in the petition are not attached thereto; and other relevant pleadings and/or documents necessary to aid the Court in ascertaining the facts of the case upon which the assailed 31 May 2016 Decisio