GR 109166; (July, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109166 . July 6, 1995. HERNAN R. LOPEZ, JR., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, and DOMINADOR AMANTE, respondents.
FACTS:
Private respondent Dominador Amante worked as a driver for Hacienda Colisap, managed by petitioner Hernan Lopez, Jr., starting in 1966. In 1987, he transferred to Bea Agricultural Corporation, managed by Javier Lopez Tanjanco, where he was dismissed on April 25, 1990, and paid separation pay. He was subsequently re-employed by Hacienda Colisap in May 1990. However, his re-employment was short-lived, as he was dismissed again by petitioner on July 5, 1990, without a valid reason or due process.
Amante filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement with backwages or separation pay, and wage differentials. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding no employer-employee relationship at the time of dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision, finding that Amante was illegally dismissed as a probationary employee and awarding him reinstatement, backwages for six months, separation pay, and wage differentials totaling P19,542.50.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) finding that petitioner re-hired and illegally dismissed Amante; (2) awarding both backwages and separation pay; and (3) granting wage differentials.
RULING
The Supreme Court sustained the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal but modified the award. The NLRC correctly admitted payrolls presented on appeal to prove re-employment, as Article 221 of the Labor Code allows the use of reasonable means to ascertain facts without strict adherence to technical rules of evidence. The Court affirmed that Amante, though a probationary employee, could only be terminated for a just or authorized cause and with due process, which petitioner failed to establish.
However, the Court held that the NLRC erred in awarding both backwages and separation pay. These are distinct reliefs: backwages restore lost income due to unjust dismissal, while separation pay provides financial assistance during the search for new employment. Granting both is inherently inconsistent with the order of reinstatement. Thus, the award of separation pay was deleted.
Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in awarding wage differentials, as the NLRC’s factual finding that Amante was underpaid was supported by evidence. The assailed decision was affirmed with the modification deleting the separation pay award.