GR 63208; (May, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 63208-09 May 5, 1989
CAMARA SHOES, represented by LUCIA VDA. DE CAMARA, petitioner, vs. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA CAMARA SHOES, HON. FRANCISCO ESTRELLA, HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Camara Shoes, a single proprietorship, sought to terminate twenty regular employees on grounds of financial losses, business reversals, and lack of work. On December 28, 1979, it filed an application for clearance to terminate with the Ministry of Labor, docketed as NCR-STF-1-281-80. The respondent union opposed this application and, on January 11, 1980, filed a separate complaint for illegal lay-off, unpaid wages, and service incentive leave pay, docketed as NCR-STF-1-234-80. The petitioner refused to allow the employees to work starting February 1, 1980. On March 28, 1980, the Regional Director denied the clearance application due to lack of substantial proof and ordered the reinstatement of all employees with full backwages. The petitioner appealed this order to the NLRC on April 18, 1980.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the appeal to the NLRC was filed on time; (2) whether the termination was justified by business losses; and (3) whether the death of the proprietor extinguished the labor case.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was timely filed. The applicable rule required an appeal within ten working days from receipt of the decision. The petitioner received the order on April 2, 1980. Computing the period while excluding holidays and non-working days (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Bataan Day), the last day to appeal fell on April 18, 1980, the date the appeal was actually filed. The NLRC erred in dismissing the appeal as out of time.
On the substantive issue, the Court affirmed the denial of the clearance application. The petitioner failed to present substantial proof of alleged business losses to justify termination under Article 284 of the Labor Code. The mere submission of a statement of assets and liabilities, without supporting financial statements or evidence, and the failure to appear at scheduled hearings, rendered the claim of business reverses unsubstantiated. The death of the proprietor, Santos Camara, prior to the termination did not extinguish the case. The claims for reinstatement and backwages arose after his death and were against the ongoing business concern, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor authorities. However, as sixteen of the twenty employees had settled their claims, the petition was dismissed as to them. The Court modified the Labor Director’s decision, ordering the reinstatement of the four remaining employees with full backwages limited to three years and payment of their service incentive leave for 1979.