MACARTHUR MALICDEM and HERMENIGILDO FLORES
vs.
MARULAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION and MIKE MANCILLA
G.R. No. 204406, February 26, 2014
FACTS:
Respondents Marulas Industrial Corporation (Marulas) and Mike Mancilla (Mancilla) were engaged
in the business of manufacturing sacks for local and export markets, and petitioners Malicdem and
Flores filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay, money claims, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney's fees.
Their job contracts were one (1) year in length. They would sign a Resignation/Quitclaim in favor of
Marulas a day after their contracts ended each year after that, and then sign another one-year
contract. Until one day, on December 16, 2010, when Flores was asked to sign a paper by Marulas'
HR Head acknowledging the completion of his contractual position, he was advised not to report for
work anymore. Malicdem was also fired on February 1, 2011, after signing a similar document. As a
result, both claimed they were wrongfully fired.
Malicdem and Flores filed a complaint against Marulas and Mancilla for wrongful dismissal on
February 7, 2011.
On July 18, 2012, the CA denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
9
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.
Aggrieved, Malicdem and Flores filed a motion for reconsideration, but their pleas were denied in the
CA Resolution, dated November 12, 2012.
ISSUE:
The Labor Arbiter (LA) issued a decision5 in favor of the respondents on July 13, 2011, finding no
improper dismissal. He determined that Malicdem and Flores were not fired, but rather that their
employment ended when their contracts expired.
Marulas countered that their contracts showed that they were fixed-term employees for a specific
undertaking which was to work on a particular order of a customer for a specific period.
He ruled that Malicdem and Flores were not terminated and that their employment naturally ceased
when their contracts expired. The LA, however, ordered Marulas to pay Malicdem and Flores their
respective wage differentials.
As a result, the claims of wrongful dismissal are dismissed due to a lack of validity. Respondent
Marulas Industrial Corporation, on the other hand, is ordered to pay the wage differential to the
complainants.
Malicdem and Flores appealed to the NLRC which partially granted their appeal with the award of
payment of 13th month pay, service incentive leave and holiday pay for three (3) years. The
dispositive portion of its December 19, 2011 Decision reads:
7
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED IN PART. The Decision of Labor Arbiter Raymund M.
Celino, dated July 13, 2011, is MODIFIED. In addition to the award of salary differentials,
complainants should also be awarded 13th month pay, service incentive leave and holiday pay for
three years.
SO ORDERED. 8
Still, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the NLRC on February 29,
2011.
DECISION:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Macarthur
1
Malicdem (Malicdem) and Hermenigildo Flores (Flores) assails the July 18, 2012 Decision and the
2
November 12, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 1244 70, dismissing
3
their petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in an action for illegal dismissal.
