2 illegally dismissed Veloso Lines workers get favorable ruling

Two workers of a transportation company based in this city became recipients of a favorable ruling from the National Labor Relations Commission regional office. The two, identified as Cirilo Evediente and Gina Vergara, were awarded a total of P361,020.00 after they won an illegal dismissal case they filed against Veloso Lines, a transportation company owned by former Loon vice mayor Manuel Veloso. While the case was heard at the National Labor Relations Commission in Tagbilaran, the labor agency dismissed the complaint for lack of legal or factual basis. The complainants appealed their case to the 4th NLRC division in Cebu and on February 18, 2005 , the assailed decision was set aside and a new one entered declaring that complainants were illegally suspended and or dismissed.

The same ruling indicated that complainants were entitled to separation pay of one month salary per year of service plus backwages from their illegal suspension. Evidiente in the same ruling was entitled a separation pay of P88,400.00; bacwages,P90,400.00; 13th month pay,P15,600;and SILP, P3,000. For Vergara, she was awarded the following: separation pay, P65,520.00; backwages, P81,3560; 13th month pay,P14,040.00;and SILP,P2,700. According to Fructouso Villarin IV, labor arbiter of NLRC-Tagbilaran, the judgment has become final and executory by virtue of its entry of judgment dated November 30,2005. But the two complainants are yet to receive their just compensation as a result of the favorable ruling from the NLRC.

The lawyer of the respondent filed a petition for relief from judgement. In a brief statement of the facts of the case, the lawyer of the respondent questioned the commission's reckoning of the complainants service records. The lawyer noted that as per records of the case, Evediente joined the company of the respondent only in March 1990 while complainant Vergara was employed in November, 1992. According to the lawyer, the complainants were suspended or dismissed in May, 2003, hence their respective length of service should only be 13 years for Evediente instead of 17 years while on the part of Vergara 11 years instead of 14 years. In the wake of the erroneous computation of the length of service of the two complainants, the lawyer of the respondent asked the NLRC to hold in abeyance the execution of the decision until the resolution of this issue.

l