FACTS: Petitioners were permanent employees of respondent NEECO I. They were members of the NEECO I Employees Association. The Board of Directors adopted Policy No. 3-33, which set the guidelines for NEECO I’s retirement benefits. All regular employees were ordered to accomplish Form 87, which were applications for either reinstatement, resignation, or separation from service. Also, certain union officers were promoted to supervisory rank. These events caused apprehension in the labor organization and deemed as harassment threatening union members and circumventing employees’ security of tenure. The union held a snap election of officers. Petitioner union passed a resolution withdrawing the applications for retirement of all its members. Petitioners Marin, Fajardo and Carilio were compulsory retired and received their separation pay under protest. Javate was terminated for allegedly misappropriating funds and dishonesty. Petitioners and Javate filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on December 21, 1992 declaring NEECO I guilty of illegal dismissal. Private respondents elevated the case to the NLRC. They filed their appeal on December 28, and posted a surety bond on January 5, 1993. Petitioners were reinstated by NEECO I pending appeal. Javate withdrew his complaint and opted to receive his retirement benefits.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the appeal was perfected within the 10 day reglementary period.
2. Whether or not NLRC should have deleted en too moral and exemplary damages.
HELD:
1. Yes. Petitioners contend that the appeal should have been completed with the filing of the supersedeas bond by January 4, 1993. However, in a number of cases, the Court has relaxed the rule to resolve controversies on the merits when there are special circumstances, such as when there was a substantial compliance with the rule, so that on balance, technical considerations could give way to equity and justice. Private respondent filed their appeal within the reglementary period. The bonding company issued the bond on January 4, but it was forwarded to the NLRC only on the following day, January 5. Since it was the holiday season, The Court found it equitable to eases the rules and consider there was substantial compliance. Although as to the bond, respondent in its resolution of November 7, 1991 deleted the phrase “exclusive of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees” in determining the amount of the bond, it provided a safeguard against the imposition of excessive bonds as the Commission was given the power to reduce the amount of the bond in meritorious cases and upon motion of the appellant.
2. No. To warrant an award of moral damages, it must be shown that the dismissal of the employee was attended to by bad faith, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. As there was ULP, it was proper to impose moral and exemplary damages; however the damages awarded by the labor arbiter were excessive.
0 comments:
Post a Comment