A worker’s long court battle against HMR
EMETERIO SD. PEREZ
THE Supreme Court has ruled against HMR Trading House or HMR Philippines in a labor case it decided on August 4, 2014. G.R. No. 201483 was titled “Conrado A. Lim Vs. HMR Philippines, Inc. et al.”
As suggested in the case title, HMR Philippines was not the only respondent. Also respondents were Teresa Santos-Castro, Henry Bunag and Nelson Camiller. The individuals were officers of the company.
In his long court battle, Lim went first to a labor arbiter who “dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.” However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in his favor.
In deciding for Lim, the NLRC ruled that “the dismissal of herein complainant-appellant was illegal and the respondent appellee company is hereby ordered to reinstate immediately said employee to his former position.” It also ordered HMR to pay Lim “his full back wages, reckoned from his dismissal on Feb. 3, 2001 up to the promulgation of this decision.”
At the same time, the NLRC ordered its computation and research unit “to compute the back wages and the annual 10% increase from 1998 to 2000.”
While the NLRC orders didn’t provide the amounts that Lim was entitled to receive, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification NLRC’s ruling by “awarding moral damages and exemplary damages to Conrado A. Lim in the amount of P50,000 and P20,000,respectively as well as attorney’s fees equivalent to 10 percent of the total amount due him.”
P2-M award
On Sept. 24, 2007, Lim moved for the execution of the court’s decision as NLRC’s computation and research unit came out with total award of P2,020,053.46 by computing his back wages from Feb. 3, 2001, the date of the illegal dismissal, up to Oct. 31, 2007, the date of actual reinstatement.”
Court records showed “HMR opposed the computation arguing that the back wages due Lim “should be computed until April 11, 2003 only, the date of promulgation of the NLRC decision, as stated in the dispositive portion of the NLRC decision, which provided that back wages shall be reckoned from his dismissal on Feb. 3, 2001 up to the promulgation of this decision.”
In opposing the more than P2 million that Lim was supposed to get from it, HMR also noted that “the 10 percent annual increase was computed from 1998 to 2007, instead of only from 1998 to 2000 as decreed.”
“In his comment,” court records showed, “Lim argued that the body of the NLRC decision explicitly stated that he was entitled to full back wages from the time he was illegally dismissed until his actual reinstatement, which was also in accord with Article 279 of the Labor Code and all prevailing jurisprudence.”
Article 279 of the Labor Code is titled Security of Tenure. “In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
More on Lim vs. HMR in another column.
Due Diligencer’s take
My temporary silence over a cap forcibly taken from me by one of the security guards of HMR Trading House does not mean I condone such horrible act. I don’t. As a matter of fact, I demand the return of said cap to The Manila Times, Aduana, Intramuros, Manila. The package should be addressed to me.
How I lost what I bought from HMR Trading House to a security guard, who I learned is named Eric Marquezes, is a long story to recount here. I argued that I bought that cap the day before but my argument went unheeded.
Besides, who gave Marsquezes the absolute power over the store’s clients by not accepting any kind of explanation from me? I purchased the cap the day before. Instead of listening, he ordered me to produce the receipt issued to me by the store’s cashier.
Why such an order when Marquezes should have seen me ask permission from a store counter to look for the missing part of a defective cap that HMR sold to me a day before he took it from me.
Anyway, HMR Trading House or HMR Philippines is known as an “Australian company”. Is it really “Australian?” If it is, then why is it engaged in retail? As I understand it, the company should be at least 60 percent owned by a Filipino or by a group of Filipinos.
The Securities and Exchange Commission must conduct an investigation to properly determine the ownership of HMR Trading House and its branches. If it’s interested to learn anything about the company, they could go over its ownership records which are on file with the SEC’s own library. From these documents, they would understand the difference or differences between being an “Australian” company that HMR says it is and a Filipino-controlled stock corporation.
Is HMR Trading House a retail store? Just asking.
esdperez@gmail.com
The post A worker’s long court battle against HMR appeared first on The Manila Times Online.