Ezra Clothing Corporation and Sincerely C.

Te vs Rufino Lee, represented by his wife,

Felisa M. Lee
G.R. No. 230681. November 13, 2023

Employee: Rufino lee

Eventually died during the pendency of the case then represented by his wife Felisa M. Lee.

Employer:
Begun employment with Futura but due to losses and closes and the successor is Ezra

Issue: Assailing the Decision of the CA denying the Certiorari, assailing the validity and the
decision of the LA Que.
______________________________________________________________________________

Facts/Antecedents:

Rufino, an employee of Futura and absorbed by Ezra given the same position held in Futura.
Eventually notified by Sincerely C. Te that Rufino’s position will be abolished due to ongoing
restructuring and cost cutting BUT he is already eligible for retirement. Was asked to fill out the
form and submit it to HR.

Rufino filed a complaint for non-payment of salary, holiday pay, SIL, 13th month, separation and
retirement benefit. Filed before the LA Ajan

After 3 months filed an illegal dismissal claim before LA Que.

LA Ajan decision: Dismissed the case for lack of merit. Ordered Employer to pay:
1. Last payment, part of salary:
2. 13th month pay
3. SIL for a 2 year period of employment.

LA held that Futura and Ezra are two separate and distinct companies, Rufino opted to retire due
to old age, he claimed his retirement pay with Pag-ibig during employment with Futura and
another retirement pay with Ezra. Separation pay denied due to lack of factual and legal basis.

Appealed to NLRC: question only the award of SIL should be 19 SIL and 19 VL according to
company policy. Specifically mentioned that no longer assailing the claim for retirement benefits
considering that claim for illegal dismissal is already pending before LA Que.

NLRC decision: Denied appeal and affirmed LA Ajan decision. Became final and executory.
Decision of LA Que: June 27, 2011
Dismissed illegal dismissal for lack of merit however Ezra and President Te was ordered Jointly
and severally to pay the complainant.
1. 19 years of service (basic x19) 6 months can be considered as 1 year.
2. 1 month salary in lieu of 1 month notice provided under Art. 283 of the Labor Code
(Redundancy).

Other claims were dismissed for lack of merit.

Held that Rufino did not apply for retirement but offered optional retirement offered by the
employer, hence not voluntary on the part of the employee. LA que disagreed that Rufino applied
for retirement under Pag-ibig fund retirement remains a fact that did not apply retirement with
the employer
.
The notice received by Rufino was informing him that his position is being abolished and he is
already qualified to receive early retirement pay. Hence, redundancy is the cause of Rufino’s
termination.

November 28, 2011: LA Que became final and executory.

February 9, 2012 Employer filed before the CA urgent petition for certiorari under Rule 65, with
application of mandatory PI and TRO.
Petitioner claimed that they only learned about the decision when the decision became final and
executory depriving them the right to appeal, pointing out that the subject of Writ of execution
decision was not entered in the Book of Judgments attaching only the questioned Writ of
execution.

During pendency before the CA Rufino died and was substituted by the wife.

CA: Denied the petition.

1. Applying the Fundamental rule of Presumption of regularity of Quasi Judicial Body
includes presumption service of summon. Unless the contrary is proven. Here, no
evidence presented to support their claim. It is incumbent before the petitioner to
adduce competent and proper evidence to prove their cause. Hence, the presumption
stands.

2. Held that Extraordinary Remedy of Certiorari lies only when no Appeal, Plain,
Speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Not allowed if failed to
appeal.

MR filed before the CA: Denied. CA found the motion a mere rehash of those which had
already been submitted and resolved.
SC: Petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to set aside the petition for
certiorari filed before the CA assailing the validity and legality of Writ of execution issued by
LA QUE.

Issues raised before the SC

1. WON Writ of Execution was irregularly issued because it was not recorded in the book of
judgment resulting in denial of due process?
2. The 19 years of separation pay due to redundancy has no basis as it has been decided and
settled by another LA Ajan and reached finality. “ Futura and Ezra are separate and
distinct company, and Employee Rufino availed his retirement benefit”

Court’s Ruling:

(Remedial aspect)
Claimed that the decision and no entry in the book of judgment claim has no merit as the SC
under petition for review on certiorari is not a trier of facts but generally limited to reviewing
errors of law. What the court has to determine whether the decision of the CA to correctly
determine whether there is presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion.

(Labor law aspect)

Actions of NLRC and its officials are covered by presumption of regularity. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the presumption is public officers performed their duties in accordance
with law, this includes service of notices such as summons.

Under the the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which was prevailing during the pendency of
the action:

“ Notices and copies of resolutions or orders, shall be served personally upon the parties by the
bailiff or duly authorized public officer within three (3) days from his/her receipt thereof or by
registered mail or by private courier;”

“the decision or order of the Labor Arbiter shall become final and executory after ten ( 10)
calendar days from receipt thereof by the counsel or authorized representative or the parties if
not assisted by counsel or representative.”
“upon expiration of the period provided above (10 calendar days decision of LA becomes final
and executory, shall issue certificate of finality”

“In the absence of return cards, certifications from the post office or courier or other proof of
service to the parties, the Labor Arbiter may issue a certificate of finality after sixty (60)
calendar days from date of mailing.”
“SECTION 1. Execution Upon Finality of Decision or Order. - a) A writ of execution may be
issued motu proprio or on motion, upon a decision or order that has become final and
executory.”

Here, from the promulgation of the decision of LA QUE on June 27, 2011, LA Que issued a
Certificate of Finality on November 28, 2011. Decision, a copy thereof was given to the bailiff or
some other duly authorized public officer in order for the latter to serve notice of the decision
and a copy of such decision upon the parties, and that such service was in fact made in a manner
and within the periods allowed by the rules.

When the plaintiff's claim depends on the establishment of negative facts and the means of
proving the fact are equally within the control of each party, the burden of proof is placed upon
the party averring the negative fact. The allegation that they were not served notice have the
burden of proof that will show that Indeed d neither notified nor furnished a copy of said
decision.

In this case where the burden of proof falls upon them, and presumption of regularity operates in
favor of the challenged issuances.