G.R. No. 230682 November 29, 2017
JOLO’S KIDDIE CARTS/ FUN4KIDS/ MARLO U. CABILI, Petitioners vs. EVELYN A. CABALLA and ANTHONY M. BAUTISTA, Respondents

FACTS

Respondents Evelyn Caballa and Anthony Bautista, along with another, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims against their employer, petitioners Jolo’s Kiddie Carts/Fun4Kids/Marlo U. Cabili. They alleged they were paid a daily wage of ₱330 for a six-day work week, were denied statutory benefits, and were prohibited from reporting for work after inquiring with the Department of Labor and Employment about minimum wage rates. Petitioners countered that the employees abandoned their work and were paid all lawful benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, finding illegal dismissal and awarding separation pay, backwages, wage differentials, 13th month pay, and damages. On appeal, the NLRC modified the ruling, finding no substantial evidence of a positive act of dismissal by the employer nor conclusive proof of abandonment by the employees. Consequently, the NLRC ordered the respondents’ reinstatement without backwages but affirmed the awards for wage differential, 13th month pay, and holiday pay.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ certiorari petition for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration before the NLRC. A secondary issue involves the correctness of the NLRC’s factual findings and monetary awards.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred in its strict application of procedural rules. While a motion for reconsideration is generally a prerequisite for a certiorari petition, exceptions exist, such as when the assailed order is a patent nullity. The Court found that the NLRC’s decision contained a patent nullity in its computation of monetary awards. Specifically, the NLRC’s attached computation included an award for “13th month pay” (₱75,156.12 for Caballa and ₱74,480.12 for Bautista) which was not decreed in its dispositive portion. This discrepancy between the body of the decision, the dispositive portion, and the computation sheet created a patent nullity, excusing the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration. On the merits, the Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding of no illegal dismissal due to lack of proof of a positive act of termination by the employer. However, it upheld the awards for wage differentials and holiday pay as these were based on the petitioners’ failure to refute the respondents’ claims and to provide proof of payment. The award for 13th month pay was reinstated as it was a statutory benefit duly claimed and substantiated. The legal logic rests on balancing procedural technicalities with substantive justice, recognizing that a patent nullity in a judgment warrants direct recourse to certiorari to prevent a manifest injustice.