ChanRobles Virtual law Library

G.R. No. 153910. September 11, 2002

SULPICIO LINES, INC. vs. NLRC, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 11 SEP 2002 :

G.R. No. 153910. (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 4th Division, Julio Viajedor and Isabelo Baylosis).

Private respondents Julio Viajedor and Isabelo Baylosis worked as stewards/messmen for petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc., a corporation engaged in domestic passenger and cargo shipping. They were dismissed in 1995 for dishonesty/misconduct for allegedly giving free passage to a certain passenger. In July 1997, private respondents sued petitioner corporation for illegal dismissal in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII, Cebu City.

On September 2, 1998 , Labor Arbiter Reynoso Belarmino rendered judgment finding petitioner liable for illegal dismissal and ordered it to pay to private respondents separation pay equivalent to one half month pay for every year of service in Lieu of reinstatement. Private respondents appealed to the NLRC for their reinstatement and for payment to them of full backwages On the other hand, petitioner corporation did not appeal.

On November 29, 1999 , the NLRC rendered judgment partially granting private respondents' appeal by ordering petitioner to pay private respondents full backw2ges and separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service but denied private respondents' prayer for reinstatement in view of the strained relations between them and petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which denied the same. Its motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence this petition.

The petition has no merit. Petitioner corporation reiterates its contention that the NLRC erred in granting separation pay and full backwages to private respondents because, as found by the Labor Arbiter, it had acted in good faith. As correctly noted by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, however, the labor arbiter in this case clearly found petitioner to have dismissed private respondents without just cause, thus the order for petitioner to pay the latter separation pay (although based on erroneous computation not to mention that he should have likewise required petitioner to pay full backwages to private respondents). Indeed, the labor arbiter found that petitioner was not able to prove its charges against private respondents. As petitioner did not appeal from this ruling, this finding of the labor arbiter became conclusive as to petitioner corporation and can no longer be questioned.

Neither is there merit to petitioner's claim that since private respondents filed their complaint for illegal dismissal more than two ears after they had been dismissed, they should not be awarded full backwages. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to full backwages (Labor Code, Art. 279) and private respondents filed their complaint for illegal dismissal within the four-year prescriptive period provided for such (Magno v. National Construction Corporation, 198 SCRA 230 (1991)).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE