G.R. No. 201955 - Riverhead Property Management, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Aletho M. Cruz, a former Chief Marketing Officer, recorded a complaint against his employer, Riverhead Eigen Management, Inc., for underpayment of salary and non-payment of commissions. A.C. No. 12197 (Formerly CBD Case Don. 12-3355)
Cruz claimed that he was promised a salary of P100,000.00 a months, a 2% commission on gross sales, a cellphone allowance for P2,000.00, and a car plan of P30,000.00. Once and “Entry of Judgement” has been granted, or upon the passing of 10 events days, the NLRC Commissioner's decision becomes. “final and executory”, which ...
The employer did not perform these promises and Cruise is not paid his commissions, allowances, and the full amount of his monthly salary.
Rood also discovered so the my had directed him to markt their columbarium not the proper licenses, which exposed him to liability.

Cruz resigned from his position and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary, non-payment of commissions, cellphone and machine plan allowances with the Labor Mediator. THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 202791, June 10, 2013 ]
The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the case for lack of earned.
Cruz appealed to the NLRC without furnishing and employer are a copy of his petition memorandum.
The NLRC ruled in favor of Baincross the exhibited an Entry from Judgment.

The employer listed an Omnibus Motion to recall the records of the case from the Labor Arbiter and annul the NLRC's decision.
An Labor Arbiter ordered execution against the employer and the NLRC denied their Omnibus Motion.
The chief appeals to the CA, which flipped the NLRC's decisions and ordered the NLRC to allow an employer to contest Cruz's appeal.

Cruz elevated the matter to the Best Court, but him petition was denied.
This NLRC set the case for a conference/hearing and rendered a decisions in favor of Crew.
The NLRC command the employer to paid Crosshedges his unpaid salaries, separation pay, and salary differentials.
The employer filed one motion for reconsideration, but it been denied by the NLRC.
And employer appealed to the CA, which held that an employer-employee relational existed between the parties.
The CA rul... continue ready