G.R. No. L-54223, February 26, 1988
BABY BUS INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. MINISTER OF LABOR and JACINTO MANGALINO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Jacinto Mangalino filed a complaint against petitioner Baby Bus Inc. for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, violation of P.D. 525 (emergency allowance), and unpaid wages. The Labor Arbiter found that Mangalino worked as an over-all inspector from June 1972 until May 1975, when he ceased working after suffering several strokes. The Arbiter ordered the payment of separation pay and emergency allowances. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, ordering payment of separation pay equal to one and a half months’ pay, emergency living allowances from August 1974, and overtime pay for five hours a day, six days a week for the period he actually worked. The Minister of Labor affirmed this decision.
During the compulsory arbitration proceedings, Mangalino submitted his affidavit and supporting evidence. The petitioner’s counsel cross-examined Mangalino but subsequently failed to appear at three scheduled hearings for the reception of the company’s evidence, despite due notice. Consequently, the case was submitted for decision based on the evidence on record. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, seeking another chance to present evidence, was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Minister of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC decision awarding separation pay, emergency living allowances, and overtime pay to respondent Mangalino.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Minister of Labor. On the award of separation pay, the Court ruled that the absence of a finding of illegal dismissal does not preclude such an award. Applying Article 285 of the Labor Code, the Court found that Mangalino’s continued employment was prejudicial to his health, as evidenced by his strokes and hospitalization. His condition justified termination with separation pay, which the law mandates.
Regarding the awards for emergency allowances and overtime pay, the Court upheld the factual findings of the NLRC, which are generally accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner’s failure to present any contrary evidence, despite opportunities, was fatal to its case. The NLRC correctly based its awards on Mangalino’s unrebutted evidence. The emergency allowance was justified under P.D. 525, as the operation of a transportation business commonly requires capitalization entitling employees to such allowance. The overtime pay award was specifically limited to the periods Mangalino actually worked, not his entire tenure, countering the petitioner’s claim of physical impossibility. The petitioner’s own procedural default in not presenting evidence precluded it from challenging the sufficiency of Mangalino’s proof.