GR 77827; (July, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 77827, July 5, 1989
MACARIO D. ZAPATA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PEDRO T. SICCION, respondents.
FACTS
Pedro T. Siccion was employed by Macario D. Zapata, owner of Celilu Manufacturing Corporation, starting in December 1958. He worked as a laborer and later as an inspector until Celilu closed in 1976. Siccion continued working for Zapata in wire manufacturing and, from 1978, also served as a security guard. On September 15, 1983, Zapata informed Siccion of his termination effective September 30, 1983, allegedly due to the loss of a sewing machine, and promised termination pay which was not given.
Siccion filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and overtime pay. The Labor Arbiter awarded only a fixed sum of P2,000 as separation pay and dismissed the overtime claim. On Siccion’s appeal, the NLRC modified the decision, awarding separation pay computed at one month’s salary per year of service from 1958 to 1983 and overtime pay from 1978 to 1983. Zapata filed this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in granting these awards.
ISSUE
Did the National Labor Relations Commission commit grave abuse of discretion in awarding separation pay and overtime pay to Pedro T. Siccion?
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC decision. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as the NLRC’s factual findings and legal conclusions were supported by substantial evidence. On the illegal dismissal, the NLRC correctly found the accusation of theft baseless due to Zapata’s contradictory statements regarding the missing items, rendering the dismissal illegal. Since Siccion prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, the NLRC properly computed it from his initial employment in 1958, considering his continuous service with the same employer despite the corporate closure in 1976.
Regarding overtime pay, the NLRC based its award on Siccion’s specific, uncontroverted allegation in his sworn statement that he worked as a security guard from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. starting in 1978. Zapata failed to refute this claim, merely asserting Siccion was a househelper. The NLRC’s decision, grounded on evidence and within its adjudicatory authority, constituted at most an error of judgment, not a jurisdictional error correctible by certiorari. Procedurally, the petition was also fatally defective because Zapata failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision, a mandatory precondition for judicial review intended to allow the agency to correct itself and expedite dispute resolution.