Heslet v. MSIC Transportation, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250989. May 5, 2021.]

FRANCIS HESLET, petitioner, vs.MSIC TRANSPORTATION, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 May 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 250989 (Francis Heslet v. MSIC Transportation, Inc.). — In this petition, 1 petitioner Francis Heslet (Heslet) assails the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 2 dated September 27, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated December 16, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 155895, which deleted the overtime pay and attorney's fees awarded by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in his favor.

ANTECEDENTS

In his Complaint 4 for illegal dismissal and monetary claims, Heslet alleged that respondent MSIC Transportation, Inc. (MSIC) hired him as a Chauffeur assigned to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in April 2016. Under their fixed-term contract, Heslet will work for 12 hours a day, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a daily salary of P700.00. 5 Any work rendered on Saturdays upon DFA's request will be paid at the same rate, and those done more than 12 hours will be paid overtime pay at the rate of P75.00 per hour. In case he works on a Saturday for MSIC's clients other than DFA, he will be paid only P481.00 for 8 hours of work. 6 On January 3, 2017, MSIC illegally terminated his contract. Heslet prayed for the payment of unpaid salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, and the reimbursement of illegally deducted cash bond and cost of damage on the vehicle assigned to him. 7 MSIC, for its part, denied the allegations. 8

On November 27, 2017, the Labor Arbiter (LA) issued his Decision, 9 finding no illegal dismissal because Heslet was under a fixed-term employment contract. Nevertheless, the LA held MSIC liable for the payment of Heslet's money claims for unlawful deductions, salary differential, unpaid salary, 13th month pay, and 10% attorney's fees, in the total amount of P70,382.05. All other claims were dismissed for lack of merit. 10

MSIC filed a partial appeal 11 with the NLRC, praying that the monetary awards in favor of Heslet be deleted, except for the latter's unreleased last salary amounting to P3,100.00. 12 Heslet did not appeal the LA's Decision.

In its Decision 13 dated January 31, 2018, the NLRC observed that Heslet's salary was based on 12-hour of a workday instead of the standard 8-hour workday, such that his pay falls below the minimum wage. For this reason and considering that there was an unlawful diminution of Heslet's allowance, the NLRC gave additional awards of P83,737.50 as overtime pay plus the corresponding attorney's fees to Heslet. 14

MSIC's motion for reconsideration was denied; 15 hence, it brought the matter on certiorari to the CA, arguing, among others, that the NLRC erred in awarding overtime pay to Heslet as the latter did not even appeal from the LA's Decision. As for the attorney' s fees, MSIC contended that there was no basis for the award as there was no proof that it unlawfully withheld the salaries of its employee. 16

On September 27, 2018, the CA issued the assailed Decision 17 deleting the award of overtime pay. The CA held that, although the grant of overtime pay was among the reliefs prayed for in Heslet's complaint, Heslet did not mention this issue in his position paper, nor did he adduce evidence to support his claim. At any rate, Heslet's pay slips already reflected overtime payments. Most importantly, Heslet did not appeal the LA's Decision; hence, he is not entitled to obtain any affirmative relief from the NLRC other than what he received from the LA. The CA also deleted the attorney's fees consistent with the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.

MSIC moved for partial reconsideration, but the CA denied this on March 11, 2019. 18 Likewise, the CA denied Heslet's motion questioning the expunction of the award of overtime pay and attorney's fees in the assailed Resolution. 19

Hence, this recourse.

Mainly, Heslet contends that despite his non-appeal from the LA's Decision, the NLRC may still validly pass upon and rule on the matter of his unpaid overtime pay so as not to allow the impairment of his substantive right under the Labor Code. He maintains that the CA also erred in deleting the NLRC's award of attorney's fees in his favor. 20

RULING

Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the rule that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision. 21 He may make counter assignments of errors, but he can do only to sustain the judgment on other grounds. He may not seek its modification or reversal, for in such case, he must appeal. A party affected by an adverse decision cannot suppose that the opposing party's appeal would also inure to his or her benefit, for not only are their interests separate and distinct, but they are completely in conflict with each other. 22 If he intended to question the lower court's judgment, he should have filed a timely appeal. 23

Here, only MSIC filed a partial appeal before the NLRC to question the LA's findings. This means that Heslet is deemed to have acquiesced not only to the LA's adverse judgment on the issue of illegal dismissal and the grant of his other money claims, but also to the denial of the rest of his claims, including the overtime pay. Insofar as Heslet is concerned, the unquestioned portion of the LA's Decision has long become final and MSIC already acquired vested rights under the principle of immutability of final judgment. 24

Public policy dictates that final and executory judgments are immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, regardless of whether it will be made by the court that rendered it, the appellate court, or by the highest court of the land. 25 Just as the losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision, 26 and due process prevents the grant of additional awards to parties who did not appeal. 27 Plainly, the finality of a decision cannot be made to depend on the convenience of the parties. The practice of parties who, either by their own or their counsel's inadvertence, have allowed a judgment to become final and executory, and after the same has become immutable, seek iniquitous ways to assail it cannot be condoned. 28 Therefore, the issue of illegal dismissal and the denial of Heslet's other monetary claims, including the overtime pay, are already beyond this Court's jurisdiction to resolve. CAIHTE

Regarding the attorney's fees, the Court, in Alva v. High Capacity Security Force, Inc., 29 clarified that attorney's fees in labor cases partake the nature of an extraordinary award. It serves as an indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the winning party. Being an extraordinary award, a plain showing that the lawful wages were not paid, regardless of malice or bad faith on the employer's part, is sufficient to justify the award of attorney's fees. 30 All that is required is that the lawful wages were not paid without justification, thereby compelling the employee to litigate. 31 Both the LA and the NLRC ruled that Heslet is entitled to his unpaid salary and salary differential, which indicates that his lawful wages were not paid. Since MSIC did not justify non-payment, the award of attorney's fees is reinstated equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award. Lastly, the monetary amounts shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully satisfied. 32

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 27, 2018, and Resolution dated December 16, 2019, in CA-G.R. SP No. 155895, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary awards is reinstated. The monetary amounts awarded to Francis Heslet shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully satisfied.

SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 11-28.

2.Id. at 33-41; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.

3.Id. at 43-45.

4.Id. at 115-116.

5.Id. at 55.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 117-125.

8.Id. at 132-137.

9.Id. at 193-197.

10.Id. at 197; quoted as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal dismissal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, complainant's money claims are hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Europcar/MSIC Transportation, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay complainant the following:

 

1] Illegal deductions	-	PhP2,000.00;
2] Salary differential	-	PhP35,170.00;
3] Unpaid salary	-	PhP13,300.00;
4] 13th month pay	-	PhP13,695.50; and
5] 10% Attorney's fees	-	PhP6,216.55.
TOTAL AWARD	-	PhP70,382.05

 

All other claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. (Emphases in the original.)

11.Id. at 198-215.

12.Id. at 198.

13.Id. at 84-96.

14.Id. at 95-96; quoted as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of Labor Arbiter Doctor dated 27 November 2017, is hereby MODIFIED. Respondent MSIC Transportation, Inc./Europcar is hereby ordered to pay Heslet the following:

 

1. Salary Differential	-	Php35,170.00
2. Unpaid Salary	-	Php13,300.00
3. Proportionate 13th month pay	-	Php13,695.50
4. Overtime Pay	-	Php83,737.50
5. Illegal deductions	-	Php2,000.00
6. Cash Bond	-	Php1,000.00
7. 10% Attorney's Fees	-	Php14,890.30
		–––––––––––––
TOTAL AWARD	-	Php163,793.30

 

SO ORDERED. (Emphases in the original.)

15.Id. at 98-99.

16.Id. at 50-80.

17.Id. at 33-41. The CA disposed:

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated January 31, 2018 of public respondent NLRC in NLRC LAC No. 01-000184-18; NLRC NCR Case No. 02-02330-17 is hereby MODIFIED in that the awards of overtime pay in the amount of P83,737.50 and the 10% attorney's fees are DELETED.

In all other respects, the assailed Decision and Resolution STAND.

SO ORDERED.Id. at 40. (Emphases in the original.)

18.Id. at 47-48.

19.Id. at 43-45.

20.Id. at 18-24.

21.City Trucking, Inc./Edles v. Balajadia, 530 Phil. 69, 76 (2006).

22. See Silliman University v. Fontelo-Paalan, 552 Phil. 808, 817 (2007).

23.Id., citing Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 202 Phil. 850, 854-855 (1982).

24. See Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc., G.R. No. 204555, July 6, 2020.

25.Silliman University v. Fontelo-Paalan, supra note 21, at 820.

26.Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc., G.R. No. 204555, July 6, 2020.

27.Daabay v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., 716 Phil. 806, 814 (2013); Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera, 710 Phil. 124, 134-135 (2013).

28.Ocampo v. CA (Former 2nd Div.), 601 Phil. 43, 52 (2009).

29. 820 Phil. 677 (2017).

30. See id.; see also Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa MWC-East Zone Union v. Manila Water Company, Inc., 676 Phil. 262, 276 (2011).

31.Alva v. High Capacity Security Force, Inc., supra note 28, at 689.

32. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).