Cases

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAL vs NLRC GR No. PIDO vs NLRC GR No. 2007 VALDEZ vs NLRC GR No. 1998 AGRO SECURITY SERVICES AGENCY GR No. vs NLRC 1989 PHIL. WIRELESS, INC. Vs NLRC GR No. 1999 SORIANO vs NLRC GR No. 2007 ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. GR No. vs CA 2006 AZCOR MANUFACTURING, INC. vs GR No. NLRC 1999 METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, GR No. INC. vs NLRC 1998 SHIE JIE CORP vs NLRC GR No. REYES vs CA INTERTROD MARITIME, INC. vs NLRC WILLI HAHN ENTERPRISES vs MAGHUYOP ST. THERESA’S SCHOOL OF NOVALICHES FOUNDATION vs. NLRC AURORA LAND vs NLRC BUSTAMANTE vs NLRC INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. vs NLRC PARAMOUNT VINYL PRODUCT CORP vs NLRC LANTION vs NLRC

Prepared by:

114307 July 8, 1998 169812 February 23, 125028 February 9, 82823 – 24 July 31, 112963 July 20, 165594 April 23, 153750 January 25, 117963 February 11, 122046 January 16, 153148 July 5, 2005

GR No.154448 August 15, 2003 GR No. 81087 June 19, 1991 GR No. 160348 December 17, 2004 GR No. 122955 April 15, 1998 GR No. 114733 January 2, 1997 GR No. 111651 November 28, 1996 GR No.74191 December 21, 1987 GR No. 82100 October 17, 1990 GR No. 82028 January 29, 1990

FAIZODEN P. ALI LLB 2a

PAL vs NLRC GR No. 114307

July 8, 1998

FACTS: Private Respondent Edilberto Castro, an employee of PAL was apprehended by government authorities while about to board a flight to H.K. Castro and co-employee Arnaldo Olfindo in violation of Central Bank (CB) Circular 265, as amended by CB Circular 383. Upon knowledge of this incident, PAL required respondent to explain within 24 hrs why he should not be charged administratively. He failed to comply and was placed on preventive suspension for grave misconduct. ISSUE Whether or not respondent was preventively suspended. RULING: PAL faults the LA and the NLRC for allegedly equating preventive suspension as remedial measure with suspension as penalty for administrative offenses. This argument is inaccurate. As held in Beja Sr. v CA: “Imposed during the pendency of an administrative investigation, preventive suspension is not a penalty in itself. It is merely a measure of precaution so that the employee who is charged may be separated, for obvious reasons, from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the same is being investigated. While the former may be imposed on a respondent during the investigation of the charges against him, the latter is the penalty which may only be meted upon him at the termination of the investigation or the final disposition of the case.” A cursory reading of the records reveals no reason to ascribe grave abuse of discretion against the NLRC; its decision was grounded upon petitioner’s manifest indifference to the plight of its suspended employee and its consequent violation of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code.

Thus, the exercise by an employer of its rights to regulate all aspects of employment must be in keeping with good faith and not be used as a pretext for defeating the rights of employees under the laws and applicable contracts. Petitioner utterly failed in this respect.

PIDO vs NLRC GR No. 169812

February 23, 2007

FACTS: Petitioner was hired by respondent as a security guard. Petitioner had an altercation with Alcantara of the ASF, arising from a statement of Alcantara that petitioner’s security license for his revolver service firearm and duty detail order had already expired. On even date, Alcantara filed a complaint for Gross Misconduct, claiming that when he directed petitioner to present his security license, petitioner angrily and on top of his voice questioned his authority. And Alcantara recommended that petitioner be relieved from his post, and that immediate disciplinary action against him be taken. On January 23, 2000, petitioner reported for work at the Ayala Center but he was not allowed to stay in the premises, a Recall Order having been issued by respondent through its Operations Manager. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was constructively dismissed. RULING: The Appellate court sustained the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that while a security guard, like petitioner, may be lawfully placed on a "floating status," the same should continue only for six months, otherwise the security agency could be liable for constructive dismissal. A floating status requires the dire exigency of the employer's bona fide suspension of operation of a business or undertaking. In security services, this happens when the security agency’s clients which do not renew their contracts are more than those that do and the new ones that the agency gets. When a security guard is placed on a "floating status," he does not receive any salary or financial benefit provided by law. Due to the grim economic consequences to the employee, the employer should bear the burden of proving that there are no posts available to which the

employee temporarily out of work can be assigned. This, respondent failed to discharge. Respondent should reinstate PIDO with back wages.

VALDEZ vs NLRC GR No. 125028 February 9, 1998 FACTS: Sometime in December, 1986, petitioner was hired by private respondent as a bus driver on commission basis. On February 28, 1993, the airconditioning unit of the bus which petitioner was driving suffered a mechanical breakdown. Respondent company told him to wait until the airconditioning unit was repaired. Meanwhile, no other bus was assigned to petitioner to keep him gainfully employed. Several months elapsed but he was never called by respondent company to report for work. Later, petitioner found out that the bus formerly driven by him was plying an assigned route as an ordinary bus, with a newly-hired driver. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed because he did not voluntarily resigned as claimed by respondents. RULING: The reason for the stoppage of operation of the bus assigned to petitioner was the breakdown of the airconditioning unit, which is a valid reason for the suspension of its operation. However, such suspension regarding that particular bus should likewise last only for a reasonable period of time. The period of six months was more than enough for it to cause the repair thereof. Beyond that period, the stoppage of its operation was already legally unreasonable and economically prejudicial to herein petitioner who was not given a substitute vehicle to drive. The cardinal rule in termination cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof to show that the dismissal is for just cause, failing in which it would mean that the dismissal is not justified. This rule applies adversely against herein respondent company since it has utterly failed to discharge that onus by the requisite quantum of evidence.

AGRO SECURITY SERVICES AGENCY vs NLRC GR No. 82823 – 24 July 31, 1989 FACTS: Private respondents worked as security guards and/or janitors under individual contracts with petitioner. In the early part of 1986, petitioner's service contracts with various corporations and government agencies to which private respondents were previously assigned had been terminated generally due to the sequestration of the said offices by the Presidential Commission on Good Government. Accordingly, many of the private respondents were placed on "floating status". ISSUE: Whether or not “floating status” amounted to illegal dismissal. RULING: ART. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. — The bonafide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty. From the foregoing it is clear that when the bonafide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking exceeds six (6) months then the employment of the employee shall be deemed terminated. By the same token and applying the said rule by analogy to security guards, if they remained without work or assignment that is in "floating status" for a period exceeding six (6) months, then they are in effect constructively dismissed.

PHIL. WIRELESS, INC. vs NLRC GR No. 112963 July 20, 1999 FACTS: Phil. Wireless Inc. (Pocketbell) hired respondent Lucila as an operator/encoder. Three years later, Lucila was promoted as Head Technical and Maintenance Department of the Engineering Department. Subsequently, respondent was promoted as Technical Services Supervisor and later on October 1, 1990, he became Project Management Superintendent. Thereafter, Lucila tendered his resignation. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was constructively dismissed. RULING: Constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank and/or diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. In this case, the Court ruled that Lucila voluntarily resigned and was not pressured into doing so. Voluntary resignation is defined as the act of en employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. Lucila’s basis for his “demotion” is inadequate as the Court ruled that there is no demotion where there is no reduction in position rank or salary as a result of such transfer.

SORIANO vs NLRC GR No. 165594 April 23, 2007 FACTS: Soriano and others were employed by PLDT in 1980 as Switchman Helpers in its Tondo Exchange Office. After participating in several trainings and seminars, some were promoted as Switchmen and Frameman respectively. In 1995, PLDT implemented a company-wide redundancy program. PLDT, through a letter, informed them that they will be terminated due to redundancy. They sued for illegal dismissal. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the dismissal was valid? 2. Does acceptance of separation benefits amount to a waiver of the right to question the validity of dismissal? RULING: 1. The documentary evidence submitted constitute substantial evidence to support that the petitioner’s employment was terminated by PLDT due to a valid or legal redundancy program since substantial evidence merely refers to that amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise. 2. The requisites for a valid quitclaim are: 1) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; 2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and 3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

In case at bar, it cannot be gainfully said that the petitioner did not fully understand the consequences of signing the quitclaim. Petitioner is not an illiterate person who needs special protection.

ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. vs CA GR No. 153750 January 25, 2006 FACTS: Petitioner is a recruitment agency duly licensed by the POEA to recruit seafarers for employment on board vessels accredited to it. Respondents Felicisimo Cuesta and Wilfredo Gonzaga were hired as Third Engineers. Sometime in January 1999, an ITF inspector discovered that respondents were not paid. The shipmaster assured the ITF inspector that he would comply in the next port. However, upon reaching the port, respondents were ordered repatriated to Manila. Before their repatriation, they were made to sign Letter of Indemnity (LOI). ISSUE: Whether or not the Letters of Indemnity were voluntarily executed. RULING: Pacta privata juri publico derogare non possunct. Private agreements between parties cannot derogate from public right. Hence, quitclaims signed by our migrant workers, such as the LOI in the instant case, are viewed with strong disfavor. It is the employer’s duty to prove that such quitclaims were voluntary. Prior to their dismissal, respondents demanded payment of their unpaid wages and protested the substandard conditions of their employment. The LOI supra contained a waiver by petitioner of the right to institute disciplinary action against respondents. Hence, respondents were under the impression that they would be disciplinarily dealt with if they would not sign the waiver. Based on the foregoing disquisition, we are convinced that respondents were forced to sign the LOI. Thus, said LOI must be deemed void.

AZCOR MANUFACTURING, INC. vs NLRC GR No. 117963 February 11, 1999 FACTS: Candido Capulso worked for AZCOR as ceramics worker for more than two (2) years when he requested to go on sick leave due to bronchial asthma. It appeared that his illness was directly caused by his job as ceramics worker where, for lack of the prescribed occupational safety gadgets, he inhaled and absorbed harmful ceramic dusts. His supervisor, Ms. Emily Apolinaria, approved his request. Later, on 1 June 1991, Capulso went back to petitioner AZCOR to resume his work after recuperating from his illness. He was not allowed to do so by his supervisors who informed him that only the owner, Arturo Zuluaga, could allow him to continue in his job. He returned five (5) times to AZCOR but when it became apparent that he would not be reinstated, he immediately filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal. ISSUE: Whether or not Capulso voluntarily resigned. RULING: To constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and with the intent to operate as such. There must be an intention to relinquish a portion of the term of office accompanied by an act of relinquishment. The fact that Capulso signified his desire to resume his work when he went back to petitioner AZCOR after recuperating from his illness, and actively pursued his case for illegal dismissal before the labor courts when he was refused admission by his employer, negated any intention on his part to relinquish his job at AZCOR. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the signatures were genuine, the resignation letters still cannot be given credence in the absence of any showing that Capulso was

aware that what he was signing then were in fact resignation letters or that he fully understood the contents thereof.

METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. vs NLRC GR No. 122046 January 16, 1998 FACTS: Private respondent Ramon started working with petitioner METRO as a station teller. On 22 April 1992 he called up the office of METRO and asked his immediate supervisor if he could go on leave of absence as he was proceeding to Cebu to look for his wife and children who suddenly left home without his knowledge. When he reported to the office Ramon was not allowed to resume work but was directed to proceed to the legal department of METRO where he would undergo investigation. Still in a state of extreme agitation and weighed down by a serious family problem, Garcia at once prepared a resignation letter. Then he left again for the province to look for his family. But like his first attempt his effort came to naught. Soon after, the Personnel Committee of METRO approved his resignation. ISSUE: Whether or not the resignation of private respondent was proper. RULING: An examination of the circumstances surrounding the submission of the letter indicates that the resignation was made without proper discernment so that it could not have been intelligently and voluntarily done. Petitioner could have fairly settled the problem of its employee and avoided litigation had it listened judiciously to the former's explanation for his absences. An employer may have to bend a little backwards if only to accommodate an employee who is heavily burdened with a grave family crisis. For it is worth remembering that the objectives of social justice can be realized only if employers in appropriate situations extend their hand to their employees in dire need

of help. Certainly, a termination without just cause entitles a worker to reinstatement.

SHIE JIE CORP vs NLRC GR No. 153148 July 5, 2005 FACTS: Respondents were employed by petitioner as fish processors. Respondents staged a walk-out and abandoned their work, bringing operations to a standstill. They were suspended for a week. Petitioner claims that instead of coming to work, some of the respondents submitted resignation letters and quitclaims. Petitioner then sent the rest a notice terminating their services for abandonment of work. ISSUE: Whether or not respondents made valid resignations and were thus not illegally dismissed. RULING: To constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and with the intent to operate as such. There must be an intention to relinquish a portion of the term of office accompanied by an act of relinquishment. It is illogical that respondents would file complaints of illegal dismissal 17 days after filing their resignation letters. Such acts negate any intention on their part to relinquish their jobs. It was held in Molave Tours Corp. vs NLRC, “By vigorously pursuing the litigation of his action against petitioner, private respondent clearly manifested that he has no intention of relinquishing his employment, which act is wholly incompatible to petitioner’s assertion that he voluntarily resigned.”

REYES vs CA GR No.154448

August 15, 2003

FACTS: The facts show that respondent BHD was appointed General Manager of Philmalay in Philippines. In 1996-1997, respondents suffered losses which caused them to reduce production and retrench employees in Philmalay. Petitioner gave verbal notice to respondent Francis T. Lau that he will serve as General Manager of Philmalay until December 31, 1997 only. In 1998, petitioner confirmed his verbal notice of resignation and requested that he be given the same benefits granted to retrenched and resigned employees of the company. Subsequently, respondent Philmalay retrenched petitioner and promised to pay him separation benefits pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code. He was, however, offered a separation pay equivalent to four months only, but was not accepted by petitioner and efforts to settle the impasse proved futile. ISSUE: Whether or not termination of petitioner’s employment caused by retrenchment or by voluntary resignation. RULING: The Court finds that petitioner’s dismissal from service was due to retrenchment. While it is true that petitioner tendered his resignation letter to respondents requesting that he be given the same benefits granted by the company to resigned/retrenched employees, there is no showing that respondents accepted his resignation. Acceptance of a resignation tendered by an employee is necessary to make the resignation effective. No such acceptance, however, was shown in the instant case. What appears in the record is a letter terminating the services of petitioner due to retrenchment. Verily, said letter

should be interpreted as a non-acceptance of petitioner’s resignation.

INTERTROD MARITIME, INC. vs NLRC GR No. 81087 June 19, 1991 FACTS: Private respondent Ernesto signed a shipboard employment contract with petitioner to serve as Third Engineer. While the ship was at Port Pylos, Greece, private respondent requested for relief, due to "personal reason." The Master of the ship approved his request but informed private respondent that repatriation expenses were for his account and that he had to give thirty (30) days notice in view of the Clause 5 of the employment contract so that a replacement for him (private respondent) could be arranged. However, the Master of the ship refused to let him immediately disembark in Greece so that the reason for his request for relief ceased to exist. Hence, when the Master of the ship forced him to step out in Egypt. ISSUE: Whether or not complainant's termination is illegal. RULING: Resignations once accepted and being the sole act of the employee, may not be withdrawn without the consent of the employer. In the instant case, the Master had already accepted the resignation and, although the private respondent was being required to serve the thirty (30) days notice provided in the contract, his resignation was already approved. Private respondent cannot claim that his resignation ceased to be effective because he was not immediately discharged in Port Pylos, Greece, for he could no longer unilaterally withdraw such resignation. When he later signified his intention of continuing his work, it was already up to the petitioners to accept his withdrawal of his resignation. The mere fact that they did not accept such withdrawal did not constitute illegal dismissal for acceptance of the withdrawal of the resignation was their (petitioners') sole prerogative.

WILLI HAHN ENTERPRISES vs MAGHUYOP GR No. 160348 December 17, 2004 FACTS: Lilia Maghuyop was a store manager of Willi Hahn Enterprises its SM Cebu branch. On February 25, 1998, petitioner conducted an Inventory Report and discovered that its SM Cebu branch incurred stock shortages and nonremittances. In the latter part of July 1998, petitioner decided to terminate the services of respondent, however, before he could do so, the latter tendered her resignation. Believing the good faith of respondent in resigning, petitioner decided not to file charges against her anymore. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent voluntarily resigned as manager of the SM Cebu branch. RULING: The failure of petitioner to pursue the termination proceedings against respondent and to make her pay for the shortage incurred did not cast doubt on the voluntary nature of her resignation. A decision to give a graceful exit to an employee rather than to file an action for redress is perfectly within the discretion of an employer. It is not uncommon that an employee is permitted to resign to save face after the exposure of her malfeasance. Under the circumstances, the failure of petitioner to file action against the respondent should be considered as an act of compassion for one who used to be a trusted employee and a close member of the household. Respondent’s unsubstantiated and self-serving claim that she was coerced into signing the resignation letter does not deserve credence. It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof is on the part of the party who makes the allegations. Respondent failed to discharge this burden.

ST. THERESA’S SCHOOL OF NOVALICHES FOUNDATION vs. NLRC GR No. 122955 April 15, 1998 FACTS: Petitioner Adoracion is the president of St. Theresa's School of Novaliches Foundation. She hired private respondent on a contract basis. During the period of employment, private respondent became ill. She went on a leave of absence having been duly approved by petitioner Roxas. Petitioners theorize that the private respondent abandoned her work. On the other hand, the latter maintains that she was replaced. When she went back to work on February 20, 1992, she found out that her table, chair, and other belongings were moved to a corner of their office, and she was replaced. She tried to contact her employer but the latter could not be found within the school premises. ISSUE: Whether or not the award of backwages in favor of respondent was proper. RULING: The term "backwages" has been defined as that for earnings lost by a worker due to his illegal dismissal. 9Backwages are generally granted on grounds of equity. Payment thereof is a form of relief that restores the income lost by reason of such unlawful dismissal. It is not private compensation or damages, but is awarded in furtherance and effectuation of the public objectives of the labor Code. Nor is it a redress of a private right but, rather, in the nature of a command to the employer to make public reparation for dismissing an employee, either due to the former's unlawful act or bad faith. Jurisprudence is filled to the brim with cases wherein backwages were awarded to an employee illegally

dismissed. But where, as in this case of a pitiful employee rendered hapless by her lawyer's inaction or ignorance, the dismissal has been adjudged valid and lawful, the challenged award of backwages is decidedly improper and contrary to law and jurisprudence.

AURORA LAND vs NLRC GR No. 114733 January 2, 1997 FACTS: Private respondent Honorio was hired to take charge of the maintenance and repair of the Tanjangco apartments and residential buildings. He was to perform carpentry, plumbing, electrical and masonry work. Upon the death Tanjangco in 1982, her daughter, petitioner took over the administration of all the Tanjangco properties. Private respondent received the shock of his life when petitioner suddenly told him: "Wala ka nang trabaho mula ngayon," on the alleged ground that his work was unsatisfactory. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent was illegally dismissed. RULING: Jurisprudence abound as to the rule that the twin requirements of due process, substantive and procedural, must be complied with, before a valid dismissal exists. Without which the dismissal becomes void. This simply means that the employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be beard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. These mandatory requirements were undeniably absent in the case at bar. Petitioner dismissed private respondent without giving him any written notice informing the worker herein of the cause for his termination. Neither was there any hearing conducted in order to give respondent the opportunity to be heard and defend himself. The undignified manner by which private respondent's services were terminated smacks of absolute denial of the employee's right to due process and betrays petitioner's utter lack of respect for labor. Such an attitude indeed deserves condemnation.

BUSTAMANTE vs NLRC GR No. 111651 November 28, 1996 FACTS: Evergreen Farms claimed that petitioners are not entitled to recover backwages because they were not actually dismissed but their probationary employment was not converted to permanent employment; and assuming that petitioners are entitled to backwages, computation thereof should not start from cessation of work up to actual reinstatement, and that salary earned elsewhere (during the period of illegal dismissal) should be deducted from the award of such backwages. ISSUE: Whether or not backwages has a retroactive effect. RULING: The “full backwages” amendment by RA 6715 has NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT; it applies only prospectively. Hence, the rule is: where the illegal dismissal happened before the effectivity of RA 6715 (3/21/89), the award of backwages is limited to 3 years without deduction or qualification. BUT if the illegal dismissal happened on or after the effectivity of RA 6715, the award of backwages should be computed from the time of illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement without any deductions.

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. vs NLRC GR No. 74191 December 21, 1987 FACTS: As a result of a bargaining deadlock, respondent Unions declared a strike. On the strength of a writ of preliminary injunction, petitioner Companies "notified the petitionersstrikers to report back to work or else be replaced." The respondent Unions called off their strike and returned to work. However, a certain number of workers were refused readmission on the ground of criminal charges pending against them before the fiscal's office. However, non-strikers similarly facing criminal indictments were readily readmitted. ISSUE: Whether or not the computation of backwages of the retirees was correct. RULING: The backwages to which all reinstated employees are entitled has been set to the equivalent for a period of three (3) years of the rate of pay at the time of their dismissal. Anent the respondent Arbiter's award of leave benefits, the decree on backwages is understood to be inclusive of such benefits. The grant of three years backwages without qualification and deduction by the court necessarily takes into consideration holidays, vacation leaves and service incentive leaves, paying for all working days regardless of whether or not the same fall on holidays or employees' leave days. Having already paid these benefits, petitioners cannot be burdened to pay the same again. As to salary differentials, we have already made clear that the rate at which the three-year backwages shall be computed "at the rate that the petitioners are entitled thereto were actually receiving and being paid at the time of dismissal and strike

PARAMOUNT VINYL PRODUCT CORP vs NLRC GR No. 82100 October 17, 1990 FACTS: Petitioner illegaly shut-down operations at its Valenzuela plant and locking out its workers, in violation of the existing collective bargaining agreement and Batas Pambansa Blg. 130. Petitioner was declared guilty of unfair labor practices by Labor Arbiter. It was ordered to reinstate and pay backwages to the member of union who were forced to resigned from the company. ISSUE: Whether or not NRLC erred in the determination of the salary base for the computation of the amount of backwages awarded. RULING: After the submission of the UNION's "Urgent Motion and Manifestation" containing the list of union members claimed to be entitled to reinstatement and/or backwages, and the petitioner's comment thereto claiming, on the other hand, that 50 of the individuals listed in the UNION's list had resigned and executed quitclaims or waivers, the Research and Information Unit of the DOLE submitted its own list of affected union members. The RIU list did not contain the names of the 50 members which were not objected by the UNION. Considering the foregoing, the Court finds no legal infirmity tainting the Labor Arbiter's order. And inasmuch as the UNION failed to interpose a timely opposition to, or appeal from, the Labor Arbiter's order, re-examination of the correctness of the Labor Arbiter's findings of fact is accordingly foreclosed. The Court has declared that the base figure to be used in the computation of backwages due to the employee should

include not just the basic salary, but also the regular allowances that he had been receiving, such as the emergency living allowances and the 13th month pay mandated under the law. The Court holds that notwithstanding the belated appeal by the UNION, the assailed order should be modified with respect to the incorrect salary base used by the Labor Arbiter in his computation of backwages.

LANTION vs NLRC GR No. 82028 January 29, 1990 FACTS: The instant controversy traces its roots to the retrenchment and reorganization program adopted by respondent Gregorio Araneta University Foundation. Petitioners are permanent employees and have rendered service within a span of from sixteen (16) to thirty-two (32) years. Complainants were terminated and not reappointed contrary to the guidelines set forth by the retrenchment program. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners had been terminated from service discriminatorily, arbitrarily and illegally. RULING: The dismissal of the petitioners was illegal. The retrenchment was proper. The conditions laid down, however, were not religiously followed. Petitioners were not rehired although they fall outside the exception provided. Their positions were not affected by the re-organizational changes envisioned in the retrenchment program. Petitioners should be reinstated to their former positions with three (3) years backwages under the new terms and conditions of employment in the University as reorganized.