G.R. No. 230682 - JOLO'S KIDDIE CARTS/ FUN4KIDS/ MARLO U. CABILI, V. EVELYN A. CABALLA AND ANTHONY M. BAUTISTA.

Ruling

accordingly, ordered petitioners to solidarity pay them the following, plus attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards: Separation Pay Backwages Wage Differential 13th month pay Moral Damages Exemplary damages Total Caballa 60,580.00 109,870.80 75,156.12 10,608.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 P271,214.92 Bautista 60,580.00 112,294.00 74,480.12 10,608.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 272,962.12 544,177.04 Plus 10% Attorney's Fees 54,417.70 GRAND TOTAL P598,594.74 [15] The LA found that respondents' adequate substantiation of their claim that they were no longer given any work assignment and were not allowed to go anywhere near their respective workstations, coupled with petitioners' failure to prove abandonment, justifies the finding that respondents were indeed dismissed without just cause nor due process. [16] Aggrieved, petitioners appealed [17] to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [18] dated April 28, 2016, the NLRC modified the LA ruling, finding no illegal dismissal nor abandonment of work. Accordingly, the NLRC ordered petitioners to reinstate respondents to their former or substantially equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights and privileges; deleted the awards for payment of backwages, separation pay, and moral and exemplary damages; and affirmed the rest of the awards. [19] For this purpose, the NLRC attached a Computation of Monetary Award [20] detailing the monetary awards due to respondents, as follows: (a) for Caballa, P15,623.00 as holiday pay, P109,870.80 as wage differential, and P75,156.12 as 13 th month pay; (b) for Bautista, P15,623.00 as holiday pay, P112,294.00 as wage differential, and P74,480.12 as 13 th month pay; and (c) attorney's fees amounting to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary value awarded. [21] Anent the procedural matters raised by petitioners, the NLRC ruled that: ( a ) petitioners waived the issue of improper venue when they failed to raise the same before the filing of position papers; and ( b ) respondents substantially complied with the requirement of verifying their position papers, and thus, the same is not fatal to their complaint. [22] As to the merits, while the NLRC agreed with the LA's finding that there was no abandonment on the part of respondents, the latter were unable to adduce any proof that petitioners indeed committed any overt or positive act operative of their dismissal. [23] In view of the finding that there was neither dismissal on the part of petitioners nor abandonment on the part of respondents, the NLRC ordered the latter's reinstatement but without backwages. Finally, the NLRC held that respondents should be entitled to their holiday pay as it is a statutory benefit which payment petitioners failed to prove. [24] Dissatisfied, petitioners directly filed a petition for certiorari [25] before the CA, without moving for reconsideration before the NLRC. The CA Ruling In a Resolution [26] dated July 28, 2016, the CA denied the petition due to petitione