1. Dandy Quijano was dismissed from his job at Mercury Drug Corporation. The Supreme Court ordered his reinstatement, which Mercury did not comply with.
2. Labor Arbiter Geobel Bartolabac and NLRC Commissioner Alberto Quimpo failed to properly execute the Supreme Court's judgment reinstating Quijano. Instead of reinstating him, they awarded him back wages and separation pay.
3. The Supreme Court found Bartolabac and Quimpo liable for violating Quijano's right to due process by not implementing his court-ordered reinstatement. Both were suspended from the practice of law for 3 months.
1. Dandy Quijano was dismissed from his job at Mercury Drug Corporation. The Supreme Court ordered his reinstatement, which Mercury did not comply with.
2. Labor Arbiter Geobel Bartolabac and NLRC Commissioner Alberto Quimpo failed to properly execute the Supreme Court's judgment reinstating Quijano. Instead of reinstating him, they awarded him back wages and separation pay.
3. The Supreme Court found Bartolabac and Quimpo liable for violating Quijano's right to due process by not implementing his court-ordered reinstatement. Both were suspended from the practice of law for 3 months.
1. Dandy Quijano was dismissed from his job at Mercury Drug Corporation. The Supreme Court ordered his reinstatement, which Mercury did not comply with.
2. Labor Arbiter Geobel Bartolabac and NLRC Commissioner Alberto Quimpo failed to properly execute the Supreme Court's judgment reinstating Quijano. Instead of reinstating him, they awarded him back wages and separation pay.
3. The Supreme Court found Bartolabac and Quimpo liable for violating Quijano's right to due process by not implementing his court-ordered reinstatement. Both were suspended from the practice of law for 3 months.
Dandy V. Quijano, complainant, VS. Geobel A. Bartolabac (Labor Arbiter, NLRC-NCR South), and Alberto R. Quimpo (Commissioner, NLRC-First Division), respondents Topic: Canon 6 (but no Canon 6 or rules under it has been mentioned in the case) Facts: 1. Dandy Quijano was dismissed by the Mercury Drug Corporation in his position as a Warehouseman. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC (Quijano vs Mercury Drug Corporation). The case was elevated to the Supreme Court (Court) which promulgated a decision in Quijanos favor. The Court ordered, among others, for Quijanos reinstatement. Mercurys motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court in its July 5, 1999 Resolution. 2. Quijano filed a motion for execution of the final resolution before Labor Arbiter Bartolabac; but LA Bartolabac issued an order which has a tenor different from that of the final judgment. Instead of reinstatement, Bartolabac awarded backwages and separation pay. Later on it was found out that the Bartolabac initially recommended the position of Self-Service Attendant as allegedly, the position of Warehouseman has been abolished and that Quijano was not qualified to other vacancies (pharmacists, pharmacy assistant, cashier, self-service attendant) as he was not a college graduate, according to Mercurys appeal. 3. On the other hand, Quimpo said his participation was only that of acting on Mercurys appeal of Quijanos reinstatement as Self-Service Attendant. Quimpo asserts that by law, the Commission has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to hear and decide all decisions, awards or orders rendered by the Labor Arbiter. He directed LA Bartolabac to expedite the proceedings before it on the issue of Quijanos reinstatement. 4. Quimpo also asserted that Quijano already received the full satisfaction of his monetary award which shows that the Commission has complied in good faith with the directive to execute the Courts final judgment award in favor of Quijano.
5. Nonetheless, Quijano filed before the IBP a complaint, written in
Filipino, against LA Atty. Geobel Bartolabac and NLRC Commissioner Alberto Quimpo for violating his constitutional right to due process in failing to execute the final and executory judgment of the Court. 6. The IBP recommended for the dismissal of Quijanos complaint against the respondents. Quijano filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied since the matter had already been endorsed to the Court; the IBP no longer had jurisdiction over the case. 7. The Court was disappointed with the IBP, falling short of its expectations. The exoneration of the Respondents was only contained in two paragraphs with the reasoning that the respondents prior case with the Ombudsman, filed by Quijano, was also dismissed. SC treated the motion for reconsideration as a petition for review and acted upon it. Issue: Whether or not respondents are liable for their acts in deviating from the final and executory judgment of the Court. Decision: 1. The Court asserts that Quijano must be reinstated to his former position or its equivalent. Mercurys contention that there was no substantial equivalent position for Quijanos reistatement (which was erroneously upheld by NLRC) is untenable. Mercury operates nationwide and has numerous branches all over the Philippines. Quijano occupied a clerk/rank and file position, the Court finds it highly inconceivable that no other substantially equivalent position exists to effect his reinstatement. 2. It is incumbent upon the respondents to implement the letter of the final judgment. They have no discretion on the matters of final judgment, much less any authority to change the orders of the Court. Once the case is decided with finality, the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest. The prevailing party is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his victory while the other party is obliged to respect the courts verdict and to comply with it. (Siy vs NLRC) 3. Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of life, libery, and property without due process of law. Employment is considered a property right and can not be taken away from the employee without legal
proceedings. Respondents dispossessed Quijano of his source of living by
not implementing his reinstatement. 4. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds respondents liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondents Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac and
Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo are hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) months.
CASE #11 Heirs of Domingo Reyes, Represented by Henry Domingo A. Reyes, Jr. vs. The Director of Lands and Director of Forestry GR NO. 223602, June 08, 2020