469 Phil. 363
CORONA, J.:
Unconvinced, petitioner again filed its comment, this time submitting its own formula and pertinent figures.
1. Bernardo Bernales P 88,877.552. Jose Barcebal 60,657.153. William Borromeo 66,392.804. Alicito Curada 118,234.705. Teresita Curada 60,894.656. Geronimo Encio 76,062.407. Teresita Gan 54,315.008. Roberto Merlin 114,286.109. Augusto Sorilla 85,658.1010. Veneracion Teano 56,728.85 Total P782,107.30
In this said pleading filed by respondent, it alleged that the computation made by the Acting Chief, Research and Information Unit of this Office, was not based on what was agreed upon by the parties, and is favorable to the complainants. The truth of the matter is that, during the conference set on January 18, 1996, both the company accountant and the accountant of this office both based their computation on the agreed SSS contribution, but the discrepancy arising therefrom lies in the method used in arriving at the correct average. This is the reason why another conference for the third time was set to thresh out the differences or to finalize the computation, but respondent’s accountant failed to appear despite being notified in open court. Let it be remembered that the Acting Chief, Research and Information Unit is the authorized government accountant, which is a neutral third party, and cannot extend favor to anyone. The Acting Chief, Research and Information Unit computed the award thru the Order issued to him by Hon. Labor Arbiter Cresencio Iniego and finding his computation to be in order, the same is hereby approved.Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Wherefore, premises considered, respondent is hereby ordered to deposit the amount of P782,107.30, as computed by the Acting Chief Research and Information Unit of this Office, to the cashier of this office within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, otherwise upon failure to comply with the same, the necessary Writ of Execution will be issued.
Before this Court, petitioner claims that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) holding that private respondents are entitled to separation pay; (ii) disregarding the evidence adduced by petitioner to show that it had ceased operations because of bankruptcy; and (iii) finding that CBL Transit, Inc., is the same as California Bus Lines, Inc.We went on to state that:
Deliberating on the instant Petition for Certiorari and the separate comments filed by private respondents and public respondent through the Solicitor General, the Court considers that petitioner has failed to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent NLRC in rendering the questioned decision of 9 December 1991 and its resolution of 29 October 1993.
There is no dispute that the cessation of operations of an establishment due to serious business losses is a just cause for terminating the services of employees. In such a situation, it would be unfair, and useless, to hold an employer who is bankrupt, liable for separation pay. However, the law is clear that the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer (Article 277, Labor Code). In other words, the fact of serious business reverses or financial losses and the consequent closure of the establishment must be sufficiently shown by the employer (Balasbas vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 212 SCRA 803 [1992]).
The NLRC held that nothing in the records of the case supported petitioner’s allegation that it had gone bankrupt and ceased to operate since 31 January 1991.
We agree that petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proof resting on it. Simply asserting a state of insolvency is not enough to show serious financial losses. The petitioners did not even bother to give notice to the DOLE and to its employees that it was closing its business due to serious financial reverses as required by Article 283 of the Labor Code.
The assertion of petitioner that it is distinct from California Bus Lines Transit, must be disregarded. This Court is not a trier of facts. Besides, the claim that CBL Transit, Incorporated and California Bus Lines, Inc., are not one and the same, is of no moment; either way, the conclusion that petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal for the termination of private respondents from employment without cause, would still stand. (underscoring ours)Equally devoid of merit is the petitioner’s contention that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it sustained the labor arbiter’s order dated February 19, 1996 awarding backwages and separation pay of P782,107.30 to private respondents. It should be pointed out that, due to the unavailability of the actual payrolls, the parties themselves agreed on the basis for the computation of the respective award of backwages and separation pay — the monthly average earnings of the individual private respondents appearing on their SSS forms for the years 1988, 1989, and 1990. The only difference was in the manner of computation thereof. This issue is definitely a question of fact, the determination of which is the statutory function of the NLRC. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials’ findings rest. As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[9] We find no basis for deviating from the aforestated doctrine without any clear showing that the findings of the labor arbiter, as affirmed by public respondent NLRC, are bereft of sufficient substantiation. In justifying the validity of the computation made by the Research and Information Unit, the labor arbiter ruled that:
The difference between the computation submitted by the Research and Information Unit of this Office and the one submitted by respondent lies on the method or formula used in arriving at the correct average monthly earnings of each individual complainant. The respondent, to arrive at the average monthly earnings, divided the total earnings of each individual complainant for the three (3) years period, including the months that the complainants did render services. The method used by the respondent (petitioner in this case) is not correct. The number of months by which the complainants did render services, or were on leave of absence would not be included in the divisor to arrive at the correct average monthly earnings of each individual complainant. It we were to follow the method used by respondent, it would be unfair to the complainants who did not render services or on leave of absence, because their average monthly earnings become smaller and therefore their computed backwages and separation are understated. During the scheduled conference on February 1, 1996, parties agreed to set the conference on the following day, i.e. February 2, 1996 in order to thresh out the differences or to finalize the computation. But despite due notice, respondent failed to appear and instead filed “Ex Parte Manifestation and Motion” dated February 9, 1996.In its resolution dated August 22, 1996,[10] the NLRC, through Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, explained that, as the government’s accountant in labor cases, its Research and Information Unit was responsible for computing monetary awards in accordance with official guidelines.