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, was later promoted to inspector, and continued his employment even after Celilu closed in 1976, subsequently performing duties in manufacturing and as a security guard from 1978 onwards. 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 lump 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

No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court found the petition meritless both procedurally and substantively. On the merits, the NLRC’s factual findings, based on substantial evidence, were conclusive. Regarding the separation pay, the NLRC correctly held the dismissal illegal due to the unsubstantiated accusation of theft, as Zapata’s own contradictory statements weakened his claim. Siccion was thus entitled to reinstatement with backwages, but in line with his prayer, separation pay was properly computed from his initial hiring in 1958, as his service was continuous under Zapata’s employ despite the corporate closure.
The award of overtime pay was also justified. Siccion categorically alleged in his sworn statement that from 1978 he worked as a security guard from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM, a claim Zapata failed to specifically deny or controvert, merely raising a different defense about Siccion’s employment status. Procedurally, the petition was fatally defective. Zapata failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision, a mandatory precondition under NLRC rules to allow the commission an opportunity to correct itself before judicial recourse. This failure rendered the decision final and executory, and any perceived error was at most an error of judgment not correctible by certiorari. The petition was dismissed and the NLRC decision affirmed.