G.R. No. 165598; August 14, 2007
LAGONOY BUS CO., INC./ NYMPHA O. BUENCAMINO, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE B. CARIÑO, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lagonoy Bus Co., Inc. (LBCI), under the management of Reynaldo Buencamino, employed respondents in various capacities. In June 1997, LBCI temporarily ceased operations after its assets were attached due to a loan default. Respondents were terminated without notice or separation pay. To settle the debt, Alfredo Odiamar (Nympha Buencamino’s father) paid the loan. Operations resumed in July 1997 under the management of Nympha Buencamino as the “new LBCI,” which rehired respondents on a probationary basis. In December 1997 and January 1998, respondents were dismissed for allegedly failing to meet company standards. Petitioners later cited dishonesty and loss of confidence as additional grounds.
ISSUE
(1) Was a Rule 65 petition the proper remedy against a final NLRC decision? (2) Were the old and new LBCI the same employer? (3) Were respondents illegally dismissed?
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, while a final NLRC decision is generally immutable, certiorari under Rule 65 remains available to correct jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion. The NLRC committed grave abuse by disregarding established facts and applicable law, justifying the appellate court’s intervention.
On the substantive issues, the Court held the old and new LBCI were identical. The new entity engaged in the same business, used the same corporate name, assets, routes, and personnel. The change was merely in management, not corporate identity. Thus, respondents’ service was continuous, and they had attained regular status given their years of necessary service, rendering probationary stipulations ineffective. Their dismissal was illegal. Petitioners failed to prove just cause; the initial claim of failing standards was vague, and the belated allegations of dishonesty were unsubstantiated afterthoughts. Due process was also violated. The Labor Arbiter’s award of backwages and separation pay was reinstated.