G.R. No. 250288 . January 30, 2023
John Kriska Logistics, Inc. / John Kriska Distribution Center Inc., and Karen Nerona (Manager), Petitioners, vs. Elizardo T. Mendoza, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Elizardo T. Mendoza was hired as a delivery helper by petitioner John Kriska on February 6, 2006. In September 2016, he stopped reporting for work after a cataract surgery, believing his doctor’s advice not to carry heavy objects meant he could no longer work. Petitioners requested a medical certificate stating his illness was incurable within six months for separation pay under Article 299 of the Labor Code, but the certificate provided did not contain such a statement. After a failed settlement via the Single Entry Approach, respondent filed a Complaint on October 26, 2016, not for illegal dismissal but for monetary claims including salary differential, 13th month pay differential, service incentive leave (SIL) pay, refund of a weekly cash bond deduction of P100, and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint, finding no underpayment and noting respondent’s admission that he had received his 13th month pay for 2015 and used his five-day SIL. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, awarding respondent salary differential, 13th month pay differential, SIL pay for unutilized years, refund of the cash bond (limited to deductions from October 26, 2013 onwards per the three-year prescriptive period), and attorney’s fees totaling P51,687.86. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it granted respondent’s monetary claims for salary differential, 13th month pay differential, service incentive leave pay, and cash bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA and NLRC rulings. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC as its findings were supported by substantial evidence. On the salary differential, petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that respondent’s meal allowance should be included in his basic wage, and they did not provide sufficient proof, such as payrolls, to disprove the underpayment. Regarding the SIL pay, petitioners’ evidence only showed respondent used his SIL for 2015 and 2016 but failed to prove he had utilized or been paid for SIL in prior years, thus entitling him to its monetary equivalent for his tenure excluding 2015 and 2016. On the cash bond, petitioners never denied making the weekly deductions and were barred from raising a new argument against its refund on appeal. Finally, the award of attorney’s fees was proper as respondent was compelled to litigate to recover his rightful monetary claims. The NLRC’s computations and conclusions were upheld.