FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254893. November 11, 2021.]
SAMAHANG UNITED WORKERS OF CITRA MINA GROUP OF COMPANIES UNION, represented by JUMARY P. AREVALO and ROMULO DUMALAG, JR., petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN TAN LU, JANNAH KRYSTIA H. LU, JILLIAN KAREN LU-MIRABUENO, JULIE KATHLEEN LU-MOVILLA, doing business under the names and styles CITRA MINA GROUP OF COMPANIES, CITRA MINA SEAFOOD CORPORATION (now CITRA MINA CANNING CORP.), MOMMY GINA TUNA RESOURCES (MGTR), and PHILFRESH CORPORATION (PFC), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254893 [formerly UDK 16733] — SAMAHANG UNITED WORKERS OF CITRA MINA GROUP OF COMPANIES UNION, represented by JUMARY P. AREVALO and ROMULO DUMALAG, JR. v. JOAQUIN TAN LU, JANNAH KRYSTIA H. LU, JILLIAN KAREN LU-MIRABUENO, JULIE KATHLEEN LU-MOVILLA, doing business under the names and styles CITRA MINA GROUP OF COMPANIES, CITRA MINA SEAFOOD CORPORATION (now CITRA MINA CANNING CORP.), MOMMY GINA TUNA RESOURCES (MGTR), and PHILFRESH CORPORATION (PFC)
Petitioner Samahang United Workers of Citra Mina Group of Companies Union asks the Court to determine whether it committed illegal strike through the various acts imputed on it and its members; whether the actions it separately lodged against petitioner right after the company filed the complaint for illegal strike violated the proscription against forum shopping and exceeded the prescribed period therefor; and whether the company was justified in changing the line of its business operation and on the basis thereof, validly dismissed the employees. Clearly, these are factual questions beyond the Court's cognizance via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Indeed, not being a trier of facts, the Court will not recalibrate or weigh anew the evidence on record which the two (2) labor tribunals and the appellate court had already passed upon in full in their concurrent dispositions of the issues at hand. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion or serious misappreciation of the evidence, these concurrent factual findings, being supported by substantial evidence on record, are binding, if not conclusive, upon the Court.
On the award of separation pay, however, the Court of Appeals modified the separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary granted by the labor arbiter and affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission to one half month (1/2) pay for every year of service, ruling that this is the equitable rate of separation pay even if the employees' termination is justified, citing Philippine Geothermal v. NLRC. 1
Article 298 of the Labor Code provides:
Art. 298. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. — The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, the option to award separation pay equivalent to one(1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service depends on which rate is higher, thus, more beneficial to the employee. There is, however, nothing in the records pertaining to the monthly salary received by the dismissed employees during their tenure with Citra Mina Group of Companies. This makes it difficult for the Court to determine which between the formula one (1) month pay or one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service is more favorable to the dismissed workers in computing the separation pay. The Court, thus, deems it prudent to remand the case to the labor arbiter for computation of the rate of separation pay to determine which rate is more favorable to the employees concerned.
All told, there is no sufficient showing, as none was shown that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in rendering its assailed dispositions to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Decision 2 dated July 26, 2019 and the Consolidated Resolution 3 dated June 8, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08583-MIN and CA-G.R. SP No. 08425-MIN; and CA-G.R. SP No. 08397-MIN are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Citra Mina Seafood Corp. (now Citra Mina Canning Corp.) represented by Jannah Krystia H. Lu is ordered to PAY the twelve (12) members of petitioner Samahang United Workers of Citra Mina Group of Companies Union, namely: Jumary Arevalo, Cristituto Avila, Virgilio Avila, Melodina Berja, Samuel Lumangkibe, Adrian Mirambel, Antonio Paraiso, Arnulfo Pioquinto, Marlon Sayson, Enrique Villarente, Juan Villaver, and Ninolito Yares, SEPARATION PAY equivalent to one month pay or one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. The Court remands the case to the labor arbiter for the computation of the separation pay due to the twelve (12) employees following the formula one month pay or one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. The separation pay due to the twelve (12) employees shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
On the other hand, the aforenamed employees are directed to pay Citra Mina Seafood Corp. (now Citra Mina Canning Corp.) represented by Jannah Krystia H. Lu, attorney's fees of P50,000.00. This amount shall also earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution 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. 105-107.
2.Id. at 89-111
3.Id. at 112-117.