G.R. No. 100138 August 5, 1992
FIVE J TAXI AND/OR JUAN S. ARMAMENTO, petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DOMINADOR SIBAYAN AND JOSE SALCEDO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan S. Armamento, owner/operator of Five J Taxi, hired private respondents Dominador Sibayan and Jose Salcedo as taxi drivers in 1983. Private respondents earned an average monthly income of P4,500.00 each and were required to contribute a P10.00 daily “deposit.” In August 1988, they were terminated from employment, and their accumulated deposits (P10,720.00 for Sibayan and P10,400.00 for Salcedo) were not returned. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and illegal deduction. On October 24, 1988, the Labor Arbiter decided in their favor, ordering their reinstatement with full backwages from the date salaries were withheld until actual reinstatement, and reimbursement of their deposits. A Computation Report dated March 1, 1989, set the total award at P79,260.00. Petitioner Armamento opposed this, alleging he had filed a written Manifestation on December 13, 1988, unconditionally accepting the complainants back to work, and arguing that backwages should stop on that date. The Labor Arbiter referred the case for review and recomputation. The Research and Information Unit issued a new Computation Report dated April 18, 1989, which the Labor Arbiter adopted. The NLRC affirmed this report in its Resolution dated October 31, 1989, but modified it by deducting private respondents’ earnings elsewhere before reinstatement. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, reiterating that backwages should not go beyond December 13, 1988. The NLRC denied the motion in its Resolution dated March 7, 1990, and remanded the case for commutation. On April 5, 1990, the Research and Information Unit determined new amounts payable. Petitioners filed further motions for recomputation on the same ground, all of which were denied by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing private respondents to recover backwages beyond December 13, 1988, the date petitioners made an unconditional offer for them to return to work.

RULING

The petition is meritless and is hereby DISMISSED. The Supreme Court found no supervening event or meritorious reason to disturb the awarded backwages. The NLRC’s finding that there was no hard and solid proof that petitioners had indeed made an unconditional offer of reinstatement, except for the bare manifestation filed on December 13, 1988, and that petitioners made no subsequent attempt to inform complainants of the offer or record their refusal during scheduled conferences, was upheld. The issue had already been disposed of in prior NLRC resolutions. The rule that findings of fact of labor officials are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence was applied.