FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 187457. February 12, 2014.]
INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (IBC), petitioner, vs. ROGELIO PLATA, VIRGILIO DAGUIO AND ELGAR ALMAZAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 12, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 187457 (Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) vs. Rogelio Plata, Virgilio Daguio and Elgar Almazan). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated July 31, 2008 and the Resolution 3 dated March 25, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 94287 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
Culled from the assailed decision of the CA, the facts are as follows:
Rogelio Plata, Virgilio Daguio and Elgar Almazan (respondents) were hired by Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPN) on September 15, 1976, August 23, 1976 and March 24, 1975, respectively. Later, they became employees of Broadcast City, a consortium established by the late Ambassador Roberto Benedicto sometime in 1976, composed of RPN, Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) and Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). 4 EAICTS
On May 1, 2002, the respondents retired and IBC paid their respective retirement benefits, 5 to wit:
| Name | Retirement Pay received |
| Rogelio Plata | P2,982,640.16 |
| Virgilio Daguio | P2,951,066.01 |
| Elgar Almazan | P3,245,930.33 |
The respondents, however, insisted that they were entitled to receive more than the aforestated amounts, if only IBC included in the computation of their retirement benefits the number of days they worked for RPN and BBC. Their demands remained unheeded so they filed a complaint for "Recovery of the Balance of Separation and Retirement Pay" before the Labor Arbiter (LA). 6
In their position paper, the respondents averred that the manpower resource of Broadcast City was derived from the same group of employees employed by any of the three broadcasting channels. Workers may be detailed in one company and could be transferred to another at any time. In 1978, they were transferred to RIB Maintenance, the Building and Construction Maintenance Department of Broadcast City; and in 1982, all the employees of RIB Maintenance were placed under the payroll of IBC. 7 CSDcTH
They claimed that it was Broadcast City's retirement policy that "the last company to which a retiring employee was assigned would pay the latter's entire retirement benefit, as if he had been detailed to such company all throughout his employment." 8 In 1997, however, IBC changed its policy and computed retirement benefits equivalent to the years actually worked in said company. To establish their cause, the respondents submitted in evidence copies of their service awards given to them by IBC on various dates, certifications of employment issued by IBC showing the dates when each of them were hired which corresponded to the dates when they were initially employed by RPN. 9
IBC, on the other hand, countered that it should not be made to pay retirement benefits corresponding to the years worked for BBC and RPN for being an entity separate and distinct from the two latter companies. Otherwise, RPN and BBC should adhere to an agreed proportion of 40% for RPN, 40% for IBC and 20% for BBC, or a 50%-50% proportion between RPN and IBC. Finally, IBC averred that while it may have paid the shares of RPN and BBC in previous related cases, the mistake does not preclude it from correcting the same in the instant case. 10 aSTAcH
In a Decision 11 dated April 14, 2005, the LA dismissed the complaint after finding no legal or factual basis to hold IBC liable for the additional retirement benefits prayed for by the respondents. According to the LA, no proof was presented to substantiate the respondents' claim regarding the policy of Broadcast City to the effect that any retiring employee of RPN, BBC or IBC will be fully paid his retirement or separation pay by the company to which such employee was last assigned.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the same for having been filed one day late. 12
Undeterred, the respondents went up to the CA. The CA found the petition impressed with merit, emphasizing that rules of procedure cannot be rigidly applied in labor cases and that its stringent application may be relaxed to give way to the full determination of the case on its merits. After meticulously evaluating the evidence of the parties, the CA ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered the remand of the case to the NLRC for the computation of the additional retirement benefits prayed for. 13 The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions dated 31 May 2005 and 31 January 2006 of the National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Computation and Examination Unit of the said Commission is hereby ORDERED to compute the balance in petitioners' retirement benefits, including the years of service rendered with Radio Philippines Network, Inc. and Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation.
SO ORDERED. 14 acEHCD
IBC filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. 15 Hence, this petition.
IBC maintains that the respondents' complaint has no factual and legal bases on the ground that IBC, RPN and BBC are corporations which are totally separate and distinct from each other. Thus, it would be inequitable to hold IBC solely liable for the payment of the alleged retirement benefits which the respondents rendered in favor of RPN and BBC. Moreover, the respondents' claim regarding the company policy on the payment of retirement benefits is unsupported by evidence or law. ECaScD
We are not persuaded.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in an appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court. By way of exception, this Court may delve into the factual issues raised in the petition in case there is an allegation that insufficient or insubstantial evidence was adduced to support the factual findings of the tribunal or the court a quo.
The Court agrees with the CA that a re-computation of the respondents' retirement benefits is in order taking into account the services rendered by the respondents with RPN and BBC. It is undisputed that IBC, RPN and BBC belonged to one consortium, known as the Broadcast City. All the employees of the three broadcasting companies were considered as one. The respondents were part of the RIB Maintenance, responsible for the construction and maintenance requirements of Broadcast City. While it has been observed by the LA that it is not rather clear as to who is considered as the employer of the respondents, 16 the records disclose that the RIB Maintenance was placed under the payroll of IBC in 1982. Clearly, the respondents were absorbed by IBC. Quite telling are the several certificates, i.e., Decade of Service Award, among others, issued by IBC in favor of the respondents stating therein the number of years rendered by the respondents reckoned from the time they were hired by RPN. IBC cannot, therefore, turn a blind eye now to the number of years that the respondents have worked in the consortium which necessarily included those years with RPN and BBC. As aptly observed by the CA:
One. [Petitioner] IBC 13 issued on various dates several Certifications establishing [respondents'] employment with the company; the position they were then holding; and most significantly, the dates they were hired, which were actually the dates they started working for RPN 9. These Certifications certainly carried the day for [respondents] as it supported their stance that [petitioner] IBC 13 considered them as their very own employees even though they were then exclusively working for RPN 9. aEcDTC
Two. [Petitioner] IBC 13 recognized respondents' long years of dedicated service as it bestowed upon them on various dates Decade of Service Awards. These documents bear meaning and significance when juxtaposed with the fact that [respondent] Plata's fast award was given on 20 December 1986 for having rendered 10 years of service while his second award was given on 13 December 1991 for having rendered 15 years of service. Notably, he would not have been in [petitioner] IBC 13's employ for 10 or 15 years if his tenure with RPN 9 would be excluded.
In the same manner, [respondent] Daguio's first award was conferred upon him for having rendered 10 years of service on 20 December 1986 while the second recognition was given to him for having rendered 15 years of service on 13 December 1991. Again, to arrive at [respondent] Daguio's 10 or 15 years of service, his stint with RPN 9 had to be included in the computation. aAcDSC
Three. In its Consolidated Position Paper, [petitioner] IBC 13 divulged the employment history of [respondents] . . .[.]
This written admission contained in [petitioner] IBC 13's pleading and made in the course of the proceedings, partakes of a judicial admission which does not require proof. It cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and binds the person who makes the game, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. With the foregoing disclosure, [petitioner] IBC 13 confirmed [respondents'] stance that they were initially hired by RPN 9 and thereafter assigned to work simultaneously for the three companies — BBC, RPN 9 and [petitioner] IBC 13. 17
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 31, 2008 and the Resolution dated March 25, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94287 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 9-21.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; id. at 23-31.
3. Id. at 32-33.
4. Id. at 24.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 25.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Issued by LA Napoleon M. Menese; id. at 49-51.
12. Id. at 68-70.
13. Id. at 23-31.
14. Id. at 30-31.
15. Id. at 32-33.
16. Id. at 50.
17. Id. at 29-30.