G.R. Nos. 178222-23 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is, as it is hereby, Vacated and Set Aside and a new one entered ordering respondent Manila Mining Corporation to pay the individual complainants their separation pay computed as follows: 1. Samuel G. [Z]uñiga From Feb. 1, 1995 to July 27, 2001 = 7 yrs. P14,300/mo. P14,300 x 7 yrs. x ½ P 50,050.00 2. Myrna Maquio From March 1992 to July 27, 2001 = 9 yrs. P14,000/mo. P14,000 x 9 yrs. x ½ P 63,000.00 3. Doroteo J. Torre From July 1983 to July 27, 2001 = 18 yrs. P10,000/mo. P10,000 x 18 yrs. x ½ P 90,000.00 4. Arsenio Mark M. Perez From June 1996 to July 27, 2001 = 5 yrs. P9,500/mo. P9,500 x 5 yrs. x ½ P 23,750.00 5. Edmundo M. Galvez From June 1997 to July 27, 2001 = 4 yrs. P9,500/mo. P9,500 x 4 yrs. x ½ P 19,000.00 6. Jonathan Araneta From March 1992 to July 27, 2001 = 9 yrs. P15,500/mo. P15,500 x 9 yrs. x ½ P 69,750.00 7. Teresita D. Lagman From August 1980 to July 27, 2001 = 20 yrs. P10,900/mo. P10,900 x 20 yrs. x ½ P109,000.00 8. Gerardo Opena From October 1997 to July 27, 2001 = 4 yrs. P8,250/mo. P8,250 x 4 yrs. x ½ P 16,500.00 9. Edwin Tuazon From August 1994 to July 27, 2001 = 8 yrs. P7,000/mo. P7,000 x 8 yrs. x ½ P 28,000.00 GRAND TOTAL P469,050.00 In addition respondent company is hereby ordered to pay attorney's fees to complainants equivalent to 10% of the award. [11] In an Order [12] dated 31 May 2004, the NLRC affirmed its Resolution. Dissatisfied, both parties separately filed their petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 86073 and CA G.R. SP No. 86163. The two petitions were consolidated upon motion by MMC in a Resolution dated 3 February 2005. In its Decision dated 30 June 2006, the Court of Appeals modified the NLRC ruling, thus: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partially GRANTED and the challenged Resolution dated August 29, 2003 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CA No. 033111-(CA No. 033111-02) is MODIFIED insofar as it holds MMC liable to pay the Union attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the award, which portion of the questioned decision is now SET ASIDE. The monetary award of separation pay is maintained, but is MODIFIED from one (1) month pay for every year of service to ONE-HALF (1/2) MONTH PAY for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year. [13] Both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration but in a Resolution dated 30 May 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the motions for lack of merit. [14] Only the Union elevated the case to this Court via the instant petition for review on certiorari . The Union attributes bad faith on the part of MMC in implementing the temporary lay-off resulting in the complainants' constructive dismissal. The Union alleges that the failure to obtain a permit to operate TP No. 7 is largely due to failure on the part of MMC to comply with the DENR-EMB's conditions. [15] The Union claims that the temporary lay-off was eff