CAPILLO, VIRGINIA SANORJO and THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.
G.R. No. L-61898, August 9, 1985
FACTS make a report or to ask for a prior clearance as
reiterated in Sections 10 and 11 (c), Rule XIV, Lao Sok owned and operated the Shelton Book V of the Labor Code. This obligation Department Store located at Carriedo Street, should be based on Article 284 of the Labor Quiapo, Manila. Lydia Sabaysabay, Amparo Code which provides for separation pay Mangulat, Rosita Salviejo, Nenita Ruinata, Vilma whenever there is a reduction of personnel Capillo and Virginia Sanorjo all worked as caused by the closure of an establishment salesladies of the department store with a daily which is not intended to circumvent the wage of P14.00 each. On October 12, 1980, the provisions of the law. petitioners department store was destroyed by fire. Lao Sok did not report the loss of jobs of Lao Sok promised to give his employees their the salesladies which resulted from the burning separation pay, as soon as he receives the of his department store to the Regional Office insurance proceeds for his burned building was of the Ministry of Labor. He, however, promised not rebutted. The Solicitor General further the private respondents that he would transfer explained that in was in reality not a mere them to his other department stores and that promise as petitioner terms it but a contract, he would give them their separation pay and because all the essential requisites of a valid other benefits due them as soon as he collected contract are present, to wit: (1) consent was the insurance proceeds arising from his burned freely given by the parties, (2) there was a store. This offer was accepted by the private subject matter, which is the payment of the respondents. Lao Sok later was able to collect separation pay of private respondents, and (3) a the proceeds of his insurance but failed to give cause, which is the loss of job of private the respondents their separation pay and to respondents. Lao Sok made an offer which was transfer them to his other department stores. duly accepted by the private respondents. The private respondents filed a complaint with There was, therefore, a meeting of the minds the Ministry of Labor and Employment charging between two parties (Article 1305 of the Civil the petitioner with illegal dismissal and non- Code). The requirement of writing for the offer payment of their separation pay, allowance and made by Lao Sok is only for convenience and incentive leave pay. The Labor Arbiter rendered not enforceability. Lao Sok voluntarily agreed to a decision in favor of the respondents ordering compensate private respondents for the loss of the payment of the separation pay. The NLRC their jobs. The validity of that agreement must, affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. consequently, be sustained.