SECOND DIVISION
UNION
INDUSTRIES, INC., G.R.
No. 140102
Petitioner,
Present
:
PUNO,
J., Chairman,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
AZCUNA
and
GARCIA, JJ.
GASPAR VALES and
PRUDENCIO CERDENIA,[1]
Respondents. Promulgated
:
February 9, 2006
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
In
this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner would
have us annul and set aside the May 21, 1999 decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
National Labor Relations Commission[3]
(NLRC) in holding petitioner liable to pay respondents, Gaspar
Vales and Prudencio Cerdenia,
separation benefits in the amounts of P27,885 and P21,450,
respectively.
The facts are not disputed.
Respondents
Vales and Cerdenia were agency workers of Gotamco & Sons, Inc.
They were assigned to work for petitioner Union Industries, Inc. as
carpenters since 1983 and 1986, respectively.
In 1995, grievance meetings were held
for the regularization of several contractual employees, including respondents.
This resulted in a compromise agreement,[4]
the pertinent portion of which read:
1.)
On the remaining issues, the parties agreed on the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The following years of service of the remaining 8
complainants under Gotamco shall be tacked in into
their length of service as regular employees of UII for purposes only of
retirement or separation pay, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
2. GASPAR
VALES - 6 years
3. PRUDENCIO CERDENIA - 5 years
2.) The complainants agree that this agreement
embodies all their claims and that they waive any other claims against UII
which [they] could have made or have made during the negotiations, but which
are not embodied in this agreement.
3.) The parties agree to sign the formal memorandum
of agreement at a later date to be agreed upon by them.”[5]
In
1995, respondents joined petitioner’s mainstream of regular employees. They underwent medical examination and were
both diagnosed to be positive for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). They were,
however, allowed to continue working for another year subject to medical
re-examination. If still found suffering from PTB, they were to take a leave to
recuperate before reporting back to work.
On
June 14, 1996, respondents were again found positive for PTB. They were required to go on sick leave.
Instead, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner
before the arbitration branch of the NLRC.
The
labor arbiter[6]
dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal but ordered the payment of
separation benefits based on the following:
After a thorough analysis of the evidence adduced to
the records of the case at bench, this Arbitration Branch finds that
complainants[7]
were not illegally dismissed from employment much less dismissed at all. They were both [merely asked] to go on sick
leave for further medical treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB).
xxx xxx xxx
Considering that complainants [were] suffering from controlled
PTB minimal since the [latter] part of 1995 and their continued employment
would be prejudicial to their health and that of their co-workers and despite
medication and treatment for over a year, their medical condition showed that
they are still suffering from PTB minimal, the relief of separation pay of ½
month salary for every year of credited and actual service is in order. xxx
The
basis in the computation of their separation benefits should be reckoned from
the date that they were first hired/assigned at Union Industries, Inc. by Gotamco & Sons, Inc.
and not from the agreement forged between labor and management as a
result of the grievance hearing for the regularization of the affected service
contractual workers (including complainants herein). This is based on the principle of equity
since the record of employment is reckoned not from the date of his appointment
as such, but from the very first time that he worked with the respondent
establishment.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering
Respondent, Union Industries, Inc.[8]
to pay complainants, Gaspar Vales and Prudencio Cerdenia separation
benefits in the amounts of P27,885.00 and P21,450.00
respectively.
The complaint for illegal dismissal and other
monetary claims are hereby disallowed for lack of merit.[9]
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the
decision of the labor arbiter, reasoning that, because of respondents’
regularization, the number of years they actually worked for petitioner should
be considered in the computation of separation benefits. Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was denied.
On June 9, 1998, petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari with this Court.
It was, however, referred to the
Court of Appeals in line with our ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes v.
NLRC, et al.[10]
On May 21, 1999, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition on two grounds: (1)
petitioner failed to attach pertinent documents and pleadings and (2) there was
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. According to the Court of Appeals, the
decision of the labor arbiter, which the NLRC affirmed, was in consonance with
the principle that labor laws constitute social legislation under which doubts
are resolved in favor of labor.[11] The motion for reconsideration was
denied. Hence, this recourse.
The petition lacks merit.
The Court of Appeals was correct in
dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Petitioner’s failure to attach copies of pertinent pleadings and
documents was a violation of Rule 65, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the Rules of
Court.
It is true that a litigation is not a game of
technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced
at the cost of substantial justice.
However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will
and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of
the issues and their just resolution. It
must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed
simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s
substantial rights. Like all rules, they
are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.[12]
Petitioner furthermore wants us to
set aside the award of separation benefits to respondents Vales and Cerdenia in the amounts of P27,885 and P21,450,
respectively ― a factual finding of the labor arbiter which was affirmed
by the NLRC and upheld by the Court of Appeals.
We deny the prayer. As a rule, factual findings of the labor
arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are binding on
this Court. It is not our function to
analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the
proceedings below.[13] Our jurisdiction in a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law.[14]
WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error on
the part of the Court of Appeals in rendering its May 21, 1999 decision, the
instant petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
W E C O N C U R :
Associate Justice
Chairman
Associate Justice
I
attest that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
Associate Justice
Chairman, Second Division
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, I hereby certify that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice
[1] In the petition for review, the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission were named as respondents. This was not necessary since this is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Renato C. Dacudao of the Special Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals; Rollo, pp. 10-15.
[3] Penned by Commissioner Rogelio I. Rayala, and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay, Second Division of the NLRC, dated August 29, 1997; CA Records, pp. 11-18.
[4] Dated July 12, 1995.
[5] NLRC decision, CA Records, pp. 12-13.
[6] Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr., May 13, 1997.
[7] Herein respondents.
[8] Herein petitioner.
[9] As quoted in the Manifestation and Motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, dated October 23, 2000; Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[10] 356 Phil. 811 (1998).
[11] CA decision, Rollo, p. 14.
[12] Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603 (2001).
[13] Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 743 (2002).
[14] Pacific Airways Corporation v. Tonda, 441 Phil. 156 (2002).