G.R. No. 121696 February 11, 1999
C. PLANAS COMMERCIAL and MARCIAL COHU, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RAMIL DE LOS REYES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner C. Planas Commercial (PLANAS), a business engaged in merchandising and retailing plastic products and fruits, and its manager Marcial Cohu, were charged by respondent Ramil de los Reyes with illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and benefits. De los Reyes claimed he worked as a deliveryman starting August 1988 and later sold fruits until his alleged dismissal on June 4, 1993. He stated his daily wage was initially P50.00, later increased to P100.00, and that he worked 14 hours daily without overtime, night differential, rest day, or holiday pay, and without 13th month pay. Petitioners countered that de los Reyes was not dismissed but abandoned his job after being confronted about reports he overpriced fruits and pocketed the difference. They claimed he then worked for another fruit dealer, Jimmy Chua, and presented six pictures as proof. Petitioners also argued their business was a retail establishment with less than ten employees, thus exempt from certain benefits, and that store hours were only 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal, ordering reinstatement with back wages and payment of salary differentials, 13th month pay, and service incentive pay. The NLRC reversed the illegal dismissal finding, ruling abandonment was substantiated by the pictures, but sustained the award of salary differentials in the amount of P36,342.80. Petitioners filed this certiorari petition, challenging the salary differential award, insisting they are exempt as a retail establishment with fewer than ten workers.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the award of salary differentials to private respondent Ramil de los Reyes.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Factual findings of labor officials, supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. The NLRC’s award of salary differentials was made pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act) and its implementing rules. Petitioners’ claim of exemption as a retail establishment with fewer than ten workers requires proof of an approved application for exemption in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Commission, which they failed to adduce. Furthermore, petitioners never denied or rebutted de los Reyes’ claim for salary differentials in their pleadings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The award stands.