FIVE J TAXI AND/OR JUAN S. ARMAMENTO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DOMINADOR SIBAYAN AND JOSE SALCEDO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the
Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated January 18,
1991 which allegedly allowed private respondents to recover backwages even
after they refused the petitioners’ unconditional offer for them to return to
work.

The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

In 1983, herein petitioner Juan S. Armamento, the owner and
operator of Five J Taxi, hired private respondents Dominador Sibayan
and Jose Salcedo as taxi drivers. Each
of the private respondents earned an average monthly income of Four Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (P4,500.00)
and each contributed Ten Pesos (P10.00) for
every day of service
rendered to the petitioners as “deposit.”

Sometime in August, 1988, private respondents were terminated
from employment and their accumulated deposits amounting to Ten Thousand Seven
Hundred Twenty Pesos (P10,720.00) for Sibayan and Ten Thousand Four Hundred
Pesos (P10,400.00) for Salcedo were not returned.

Thus, private respondents filed a complaint against the
petitioners for illegal dismissal and for illegal deduction of P10.00 each day
from their salaries.

On October 24, 1988, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in
private respondents’ favor, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the
respondent(s), to reinstate the complainants to their former positions, with
full backwages, from the date of withholding of their salaries, until they are
actually reinstated.

“Respondent is likewise
ordered to reimburse the complainants of their deposits, Ten Thousand Seven
Hundred Twenty Pesos (P10,720.00) for Dominador Sibayan and Ten Thousand Four
Hundred Pesos (P10,400.00) for Jose Salcedo.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 25, Rollo)

In implementing said decision, the Research and Information Unit
submitted a Computation Report dated March 1, 1989 of the awards due the
private respondents in the total sum of Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred Sixty
Pesos (P79,260.00).

Petitioner Juan Armamento vigorously opposed said computation
report, alleging that as early as December 13, 1988, he filed a written
Manifestation before the Labor Arbiter, stating among others, that:

“That as of this date (December 13, 1988) I am unconditionally
accepting complainants back to work and they can report to work anytime during
office hours.” (Annex “C”, p. 26, Rollo)

More specifically, said petitioner
pointed out that the running of private respondents’ backwages should
automatically stop on the date his unconditional offer was made.

In view of the petitioners’ opposition, the Labor Arbiter
referred the case to the Research and Information Unit for review and possible
recomputation. The latter subsequently
made a Computation Report dated April 18, 1989, which was completely adopted by
the Labor Arbiter in its Order dated April 19, 1989.

The NLRC likewise affirmed said Computation Report dated April
18, 1989 in its Resolution dated October 31, 1989, but modified the same in the
sense that private respondents’ earnings elsewhere before reinstatement were
deducted from the total backwages due them (Annex “H”, p. 47, Rollo).

The petitioners moved to reconsider the aforesaid resolution of
the NLRC, reiterating their claim that the computation of private respondents’
backwages should not go beyond December 13, 1988 – the date his unconditional
offer to return to work was made.

The NLRC, however, denied said motion in
its Resolution dated March 7, 1990 and remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter
for computation (Annex “J”, p. 54, Rollo).

On April 5, 1990, the Research and Information Unit determined
the amounts of Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Pesos (P94,580.00) and
Ninety Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixty Eight Pesos (P98,168.00) as payable to
Sibayan and Salcedo, respectively (Annex “K”, p. 59, Rollo).

The petitioners subsequently filed a series of motions for
recomputation based on the same ground alleged in their previous motions for
reconsideration/opposition – that private respondents are not entitled to
backwages after they were unconditionally offered to return to work.

Petitioners’ motions for recomputation, however, were all denied
for lack of merit by the Labor Arbiter in its Order dated June 28, 1990 (p. 63,
Rollo) and by the NLRC, in its Resolutions dated October 31, 1989, March
7, 1990, January 18, 1991 and April 18, 1991 (p. 81, Rollo).

Hence, the instant petition.

The petition is meritless.

The petitioners’ position on the cut-off period for the reckoning
of private respondents’ backwages had thoroughly been passed upon and
consistently been rejected by the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter below.

In this regard, what the NLRC found in its assailed resolution
need not be further elaborated upon –

“We have painstakingly gone over the entire records of the
case and, sad to say, We could not find any hard and solid proof that
respondents had, indeed, made an unconditional offer of reinstatement to
complainants, except the bare manifestation it filed on December 13, 1988. In fact, there was no subsequent attempt
made by respondents to complainants of their alleged offer of
reinstatement. Conferences were
scheduled wherein respondents could have made it of record that complainants
have simply refused to go back to work. But despite opportunities to do so, respondents have done nothing to
fully express a clear intent to reinstate complainants as the records is bare
of any evidence to this effect. Therefore, its allegation that computation of the award should stop when
it filed a manifestation on December 13, 1988 cannot prosper. Besides, it’s too late in the day to argue
the issue as such has been long disposed of in the resolutions dated October
31, 1989 and March 7, 1990.” (Resolution dated January 18, 1991, pp.
80(b)-81, Rollo)

We find no supervening event nor any meritorious reason to
disturb the amount of backwages awarded to the private respondents which have
repeatedly been computed by the Research and Information Unit of the Labor
Arbiter.

Well settled is the
rule that findings of fact of labor officials are generally conclusive and
binding upon the Supreme Court
when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case (Edi-Staff Builders
International, Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr., 152 SCRA 458).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.