G.R. No. 192955 , November 09, 2015
EDILBERTO P. ETOM, JR., PETITIONER, VS. AROMA LODGING HOUSE THROUGH EDUARDO G. LEM, PROPRIETOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Edilberto P. Etom, Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against respondent Aroma Lodging House. He alleged he was employed as a roomboy in 1997 with a monthly salary of ₱2,500.00, working from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, including holidays. He claimed he was dismissed on February 4, 2008, without being informed of any violation or given an opportunity to explain. Respondent countered that petitioner was employed in 2000, paid above minimum wage with benefits, but was terminated for serious misconduct due to various incidents, including creating trouble, theft, a rape charge, and chasing co-employees with a knife. Respondent claimed it served a memorandum requiring an explanation, which petitioner refused to receive.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) found the dismissal legal but awarded petitioner punitive damages for non-compliance with procedural due process, salary differential, holiday pay, and 13th month pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed but deleted the punitive damages. Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing petitioner was not entitled to the monetary awards because he had executed a notarized affidavit (a “Sama-Samang Sinumpaang Salaysay”) stating he received wages above the minimum required by law. Petitioner opposed, contending the petition was filed late due to an untimely motion for reconsideration before the NLRC.
The CA granted respondent’s petition, reversing the NLRC’s monetary awards. It held the motion for reconsideration was timely filed and that petitioner’s affidavit precluded his claim of underpayment. The CA also found no factual basis for the 13th month and holiday pay awards.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision was timely filed.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the joint-affidavit as an admission against interest, thereby denying petitioner’s claims for salary differential, 13th month pay, and holiday pay.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not giving petitioner an opportunity to file a reply or memorandum to the Petition for Certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and Resolution, thereby REINSTATING and AFFIRMING the NLRC’s Decision and Resolution which awarded monetary claims to petitioner.
1. On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Supreme Court found respondent’s explanation for the filing date credible. Respondent claimed it filed the motion on May 25, 2009 (the next working day after the deadline fell on a Saturday), but a glitch in the NLRC’s docket machine stamped it as May 26, 2009. The Court noted the NLRC itself took cognizance of and decided the motion on its merits, and cited Opinaldo v. Ravina, which allows the NLRC to liberally apply its rules of procedure to resolve cases on their merits.
2. On the affidavit and the monetary claims: The Court held the CA erred in giving conclusive effect to the joint-affidavit. Affidavits of desistance or quitclaims executed by employees are often frowned upon as they may have been executed under pressure or for consideration. The affidavit in question was executed in 2004, during the pendency of a criminal case against petitioner, and he alleged he was pressured to sign it. The Court emphasized that such documents do not automatically bar recovery of rightful claims. The factual findings of the LA and NLRC, which were supported by evidence (e.g., petitioner’s pay of only ₱2,500 monthly), deserved respect and finality. The NLRC correctly computed the salary differential, holiday pay, and 13th month pay based on these findings.
3. On the opportunity to file pleadings: The Court found petitioner’s claim unmeritorious. Under Rule 65, the filing of a reply or memorandum is discretionary upon the court. The CA’s decision to resolve the case without requiring a memorandum from petitioner was within its discretion and did not violate due process, as petitioner was able to file his Comment and Motion for Reconsideration before the CA.