PACIFIC LUMBER & WOOD RESOURCES, INC., AND/OR RENATO VILLEGAS AND FRANKLIN ABELLA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS GENERAL MANAGER AND OPERATION MANAGER, RESPECTIVELY, PETITIONERS, VS. NAT…

On March 27, 2014, this Court rendered a Decision,^[1] the dispositive portion of which reads-

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the instant PETITION is thus DISMISSED. The NLRC’s Resolutions dated May 31, 2010 and August 31, 2010 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.^[2]

On May 15, 2014, petitioners, seeking reconsideration of this Court’s Decision, insist that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding the wage differentials based on position papers only without any other supporting evidence.^[3]

Perusal of the records shows that the ground relied upon by the movant had already been fully considered and passed upon by the Court in the assailed Decision. ^[4] To reiterate-

xxx

From all the foregoing, it is clear that the private respondents are entitled to the minimum wage rate as provided by law. As the petitioner admits that the private respondents received only the amount of P150.00 per day, which is well below the minimum wage, and an additional amount of P234.00 or more every pay day, We hold that the NLRC is correct in affirming the findings and computations of the Labor Arbiter in awarding wage differentials to the private respondents

xxx

Hence, private respondents are indubitably entitled to the difference between the minimum wage they are entitled to receive and the amount of wage they actually received from the petitioner. ^[5] [Emphasis Supplied]

Movant has not presented new arguments to warrant reversal of the Court’s ruling.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Badelles, and Singh, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 162-169.

^[2] Ibid., p. 169.

^[3] Rollo, pp. 170-172.

^[4] Rollo, pp. 335-338.

^[5] Ibid., pp. 167-168.