FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254682. March 24, 2021.]
ALFREDO RACHO, DOING BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE FAST ALTER STATION, petitioner, vs.THELMA N. LAPUZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 24, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254682 — (Alfredo Racho, doing business in the name and style Fast Alter Station, Petitioner, v. Thelma N. Lapuz, Respondent). — After a review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its Decision 1 dated 29 January 2020 and Resolution 2 dated 11 November 2020 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
A perusal of the petition filed by petitioner Alfredo Racho reveals that the same is procedurally infirm since it failed to comply with Section 4 (b), Rule 7 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC).
Technicality aside, the petition must still be denied.
All three (3) tribunals found that respondent Thelma N. Lapuz (respondent) was illegally dismissed. Respondent was placed on floating status for over a year, i.e., from 30 September 2016 until the day she filed the complaint on 22 November 2017, which was far beyond the six (6)-month threshold permitted under Article 301 (286) of the Labor Code. Considering that respondent's floating status lasted for more than six (6) months she is, in effect, constructively dismissed.
Respondent was correctly adjudged to be entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, in addition to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and benefits computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement, pursuant to Article 294 (279) of the Labor Code. 3 In the event, however, that reinstatement is no longer feasible, the award of separation pay at the rate of one (1) month for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement is proper. 4 SICDAa
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, a legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed upon the monetary awards granted in favor of respondent from the finality of this Resolution until full payment. 5
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 29 January 2020 and Resolution dated 11 November 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 159280 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that all amounts awarded shall be subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the National Labor Commission's Decision dated 12 October 2018 until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 31-40.
2.Id. at 41-42.
3.Alaska Milk Corp. v. Paez, G.R. Nos. 237277 & 237317, 27 November 2019 [Per J. A.B. Reyes, Jr.]; Divine Word College of Laoag v. Mina, 784 Phil. 546 (2016), G.R. No. 195155, 13 April 2016 [Per J. Reyes].
4.Marina's Creation Enterprises v. Ancheta, 802 Phil. 790 (2016), G.R. No. 218333, 07 December 2016, [Per J. Carpio]; Malcaba v. ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 209085, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Leonen].
5.Skyway O & M Corp. v. Reinante, G.R. No. 222233, 28 August 2019 [Per J. Inting].