453 Phil. 151
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
"WHEREFORE, Decision is hereby rendered ordering respondent Cosmos Bottling Corporation to pay the complainants their separation pay and backwages, as follows:On appeal, the NLRC issued a Resolution which modified in part the Arbiter's Decision by ordering a re-computation of respondent Zaldy G. Guzman's separation pay on the basis of his thirteen (13) years of service, instead of three (3). In upholding the factual findings of the Arbiter, the NLRC held:
1. Sergio C. Rey Separation Pay: P 6,552.00 Backwages P 102,069,24 P 108,621.24 2. Sixto Batino Separation Pay: P 51,120.00 Backwages P 176,969.86 P 228,089.86 3. Rizalino T. Tamondong
Separation Pay: P 8,840.00 Backwages P 110,169.97 P 119,009.97 4. Roberto Santos Separation Pay: P 27,040.00 Backwages P 129,611.73 P 156,651.73 5. Herminio G. dela Rosa Separation Pay: P 10,608.00 Backwages P 110,169.97 P 120,777.97 6. Emilio Magleo Separation Pay: P 27,378.00
Backwages P 131,231.88 P 158,609.88 7. Johnny Bacani Separation Pay: P 33,904.00 Backwages P 132,041.95 P 165,945.95 8. Zaldy G. Guzman Separation Pay: P 6,240.00[3] Backwages P 129,611.73 P 135,851.73[4] 9. Jonathan Relevo Separation Pay: P 5,421.00 Backwages P 112,600.19 P 118,021.19 10. Ireneo Solis Separation Pay: P 8,265.00 Backwages P 171,673.23 P 179,938.23 TOTAL AWARD P1,491,517.75[5]
"SO ORDERED."
"xxx xxx xxxPetitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated May 17, 1999.
"All told, respondent simply failed to establish by substantial evidence the complainants' individual culpability on the alleged tampering or alteration. The sweeping charge of `fraudulent conspiracy' leveled by the respondent against the complainants does not stand on firm legal ground sufficient to warrant the dismissal of any of the complainants for valid cause.
"Moreover, as the Supreme Court has consistently held: `In dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the termination from the service of an employee is for valid or authorized cause.' Herein respondent clearly failed to discharge that burden.
"xxx xxx xxx
"We, however, sustain complainants' claim that the computation of complainant Zaldy G. Guzman's separation pay should be based on the 13 years of service and not three (3) as found by the Labor Arbiter. x x x.
"In the light of the foregoing, We find respondent's appeal insufficient to warrant reversal of the appealed decision. However, as regard complainants' partial appeal, the same is granted only in so far as the recomputation of complainant Zaldy G. Guzman's separation pay which should be reckoned from April 24, 1982.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED only in so far as the recomputation[6] of complainant Zaldy G. Guzman's separation pay is concerned which should be based on his thirteen (13) years of service.
"SO ORDERED."
"Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner miserably failed to establish by substantial evidence the private respondents' individual culpability on the alleged tampering or alteration. The sweeping charge of fraudulent conspiracy leveled by the petitioner against the private respondents does not stand on firm legal ground, sufficient to warrant their dismissal for valid cause.On August 28, 2000, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution dated December 13, 2000.
"Moreover, as the Supreme Court has consistently held, `In dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the termination from the service of an employee is for a valid or authorized cause.' After careful assessment of the facts and evidence obtaining in the case at bench, petitioner clearly failed to discharge that burden.
"Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect, even finality, and will not be disturbed as long as such findings are supported by substantial justice.
"Grave abuse of discretion is committed only when the judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner. There being no puissant justification for us to adjudge both the Labor Arbiter's and NLRC's appreciation of such evidence as indicative of any grave abuse of discretion, petitioner's case before this Court has no leg to stand on.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Resolutions dated February 23, 1999 and May 17, 1999 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
"SO ORDERED."
4/24/82 - 6/15/95 = 13 years[7] Vide, German Marine Agencies, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 142049, January 30, 2001, 350 SCRA 629.
P160.00 x 13 days x 13 years = P27,040.00