EGYPTAIR AND SAYED EZZAT, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JOHN JOSEPH, RESPONDENTS.

In this petition for certiorari, Egyptair and Sayed Ezzat
assail the affirmance by the National Labor Relations Commission of the labor
arbiter’s decision granting monetary awards to John Joseph for his illegal
dismissal as Egyptair’s marketing adviser.

The records show that on June
1, 1962, John Joseph was employed as sales promotion and press relations officer
by the United Arab Airlines [UAA] which later became known as Egyptair. 
Thereafter, he was appointed by said company as acting sales manager.  While
holding said position from July, 1963 until December, 1967, Joseph concurrently
acted as sales manager of Atlantic Pacific Corporation [ATPACO], the general
sales agent of UAA.

Joseph’s appointment as sales manager in the
Philippines effective December 15, 1967, was confirmed by the general commercial
manager of UAA, Mohamed S. El. Hakim.  In addition to a monthly salary of
P1,750, Joseph was also given a commission corresponding to two percent [2%] of
the “net revenue realized from sales wholly on UAA services [direct or
interline], provided that the amount of sectors commissionable exceeded US
$50.00”.

On April 15, 1969, the district manager in the Philippines of
Egyptair, Mr. Gamal El-Desouki, informed Joseph that effective April 1, 1969,
his gross salary had been increased to P2,000 a month.  Said district manager
also informed Joseph of the amendment of his 2% commission, as follows:  ^[1] sales on UAA routes, up to the amount of
$500,000:  one-half percent [1/2%] of the net amount excluding sectors amount of
which is less than $50, and ^[2] sales on
UAA routes over the amount of $500,000:  one percent [1%] of the net amount. 
The records do not show whether the head office of UAA had approved said
amendment.

On January 22, 1974, Joseph was appointed marketing adviser to
Sayed Ezzat, Egyptair’s manager in the Philippines.  Four months later, he
received a letter from Ezzat reading:

“Since January 22, 1974 up to May 6, 1974 you have not reported to work
in the office whereby we have no records to show that you are on an approved
sick or vacation leave.

Due to your above-mentioned continued unexcused
absences, I wish to inform you that you are resigned from the company effective
May 6, 1974.“^[1]

Two days after he received that letter or on May 22, 1974, Joseph filed with
the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] a complaint against Egyptair
and/or Sayed Ezzat for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, sick and
vacation leave benefits, and commissions.

After the case was submitted
for compulsory arbitration, the labor arbiter issued a monetary award in favor
of Joseph consisting of his claims for unpaid wages, sick and vacation leave
benefits, commissions and separation pay.  Alleging that the award was rendered
without giving them a chance to present their evidence, respondents therein
filed a motion for reconsideration.  In due course, the NLRC set aside the award
and remanded the case to the labor arbiter for final disposition.

The
case was practically tried de novo and on August 22, 1977, the labor
arbiter rendered a decision declaring that Joseph was not a managerial employee
of Egyptair, and that it was Egyptair which considered Joseph resigned from the
service, thus constructively dismissing him from the service without just
cause.  The dispositive portion of that decision states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, an award is hereby rendered in favor of
the complainant and against respondent ordering respondent to pay unto the
complainant the sum of P280,521.00 token down, as follows:

[1] As
backwages due to illegal dismissal, from the date of alleged termination, May
20, 1974 until July 20, 1977 at P2,815.00 a month or a total of
P106,970.00;

[2] As unpaid salary from May 1 – 20, 1974, in the amount
P1,976.00;

[3] As cash commutation of the balance of earned vacation
leave privileges, computed at fifteen [15] days for every year of service, as
follows:  P1,407.50 x 10 yrs. or a total of P14,075.00;

[4] Unpaid 2%
commission for the period covered by January 1971 to January, 1974, computed on
the basis of net revenue on sales in the amount of US $600.00 per month or
P4,500.00 per month for thirty-five [35] months or a total of
P157,560.00.

Respondent is hereby enjoined to pay the above-mentioned
sums or a total of P280,521.00 within ten [10] days from receipt of this
Decision.

Counsel for complainant are hereby entitled to 10% as
attorney’s fees of the total claims of the complainant.“^[2]

Egyptair and Sayed Ezzat appealed to the NLRC. On January 13, 1983, the NLRC
en banc affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision with the modification
that only the fifteen days vacation and fifteen days sick leave credits for 1974
should be commuted.  Hence, the instant petition for certiorari,
petitioners submitting to this Court the issues of the legality of the dismissal
of John Joseph,[3] and the legality of the monetary awards granted to the
latter.

Petitioners contend that since they “improved” Joseph’s position
from sales manager to marketing adviser, Joseph was holding a managerial
position so that, his dismissal without a clearance from the Ministry of Labor
was legal.  They add that the employer-employee relationship between them and
Joseph was converted into a “consultancy” or a principal-agent relationship when
Joseph accepted the position of marketing adviser.^[4]

The issue regarding the
relationship between petitioners and private respondent is one involving a
question of fact as it requires the presentation of evidence.  Both the labor
arbiter and the NLRC, before whom the issue was thoroughly ventilated found
private respondent to be a non-managerial employee of petitioner Egyptair. 
Except where there is a grave abuse of discretion, which does not obtain in the
case at bar, the findings of facts of the labor arbiter and the commission are
binding upon this Court.^[5]

Similarly, we are bound by the
findings of both the labor arbiter and the NLRC that Joseph did not abandon his
job from January 23, 1974 until May 6, 1974.  The NLRC found that as marketing
adviser, Joseph had to work outside his office in order to solicit passengers
and cargoes for the petitioners’ from the different airline agents and
shippers.^[6]

Besides, petitioners’
allegation that Joseph abandoned his job is belied by the fact that two days
after receiving Sayed Ezzat’s letter terminating his services, he filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal.  It would be illogical for him to have left his
job and later on, file said complaint.^[7]
Furthermore, petitioner airline’s own actuation proves that at least from
January, 1974 to April, 1974, it still considered Joseph as an employee because
it paid him his salary for said months.^[8]

Other than the alleged abandonment
of work, petitioners failed to present convincing reasons for their precipitate
dismissal of Joseph.  As the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that
the dismissal was for a just cause, petitioners’ failure to do so necessarily
meant that said dismissal was not justified.^[9]

Another factor which made Joseph’s
dismissal illegal is that it was effected without prior clearance from the
Ministry of Labor.  The importance of said prior clearance cannot be
overemphasized because without it, a dismissal is also conclusively presumed to
be without just cause.^[10]

The
other matters presented by petitioners before this Court, like the actual date
of employment of Joseph, his claim for the unpaid 2% commission on sales from
January, 1971 to January, 1974, and his claim for the cash equivalent of his
earned vacation and sick leave benefits for 1974, deserve scant consideration. 
They have been passed upon by the respondent commission and, in the absence of
sufficient proof that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion, We see no reason
to disturb its findings and conclusions.

But there is one more contention
which, although unmeritorious, deserves consideration — petitioners’ allegation
that Joseph’s claim for commissions has prescribed.  They assert that the unpaid
2% commissions for January, 1971 to January, 1974 have prescribed because the
claims “should have been filed within one ^[1] year from the date it accrued, that is,
from year to year”.^[11] The basis of
petitioners’ argument is the second paragraph of Article 292 of the Labor Code
which provides that:

“All money claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code shall be
filed with the appropriate entities established under this Code within one ^[1] year from the date of effectivity, and
shall be processed or determined in accordance with implementing rules and
regulations of the Code; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.”

It should be noted that the one-year prescriptive period is counted from the
date of effectivity of the Labor Code. As Article 2 provides that the
Labor Code “shall take effect six ^[6]
months after its promulgation” on May 1, 1974, petitioners cannot validly insist
that Joseph’s monetary claims have prescribed, for they were filed on May 2,
1974, even before the effectivity of the Labor Code on November 1,
1974.

Petitioners’ averment that the 1971 commissions should have been
claimed within one year or in 1972 militates against the interest of the
employee.  If adopted, said interpretation of Article 292, paragraph 2, would
run roughshod against Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that all doubts
in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Code should be
resolved in favor of Labor.  Moreover, it would be contrary to the very intent
of Article 292 to allow the filing of money claims which had accrued prior to
the effectivity of the Labor Code within a year from said
date.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission is hereby affirmed. Costs against the
petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.

Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., on
leave.

---

^[1] Records, p. 345, Exh. A quoted in
Public Respondent’s comment and brief, Rollo, pp. 59 & 144,
respectively.

^[2] Rollo,
pp. 18-19.

^[3] Petitioner’s reply
brief, p. 2.

^[4] Rollo,
p. 13.

^[5] RJL Martinez
Fishing Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 63550-51, January 31, 1984, 127
SCRA 455; Reyes vs. Philippine Duplicators, G.R. No. 54996, November
27, 1981, 109 SCRA 489; Akay Printing Press vs. Minister of Labor and
Employment, G.R. No. 59651, December 6, 1985, 140 SCRA 381.

^[6] NLRC Decision, p. 8.

^[7] See Judric Canning Corporation vs.
Inciong, G.R. No. 51494, August 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 887; Flexo
Manufacturing Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 55971, February 28, 1985, 135
SCRA 145; Remerco Garments Manufacturing vs. Minister of Labor and
Employment, G.R. Nos. 46176-77, February 28, 1985, 135 SCRA
167.

^[8] NLRC Decision, pp.
8-9.

^[9] Polymedic General
Hospital vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 64190, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA
420.

^[10] Visperas vs.
Inciong, G.R. No. 51299, December 29, 1982, 119 SCRA 476, 483.

^[11] Petitioners’ brief, p. 17.