Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
to
seasonably
file
his
broader
justice.
interests
of
substantial
ANDO v CAMPO
FACTS:
Petitioner was the president of Premier
Allied and Contracting Services, Inc.
(PACSI), an independent labor contractor.
Respondents were hired by PACSI as pilers
or haulers tasked to manually carry bags
of sugar from the warehouse of Victorias
Milling Company and load them on trucks.
[4]
In June 1998, respondents were
dismissed from employment.
COMPLAINT. They filed a case for illegal
dismissal and some money claims with the
National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No.
VI,Bacolod City
LA: ruled in favor of the respondent;
ordered to pay separation pay, etc.
NLRC: the NLRC ruled that petitioner failed
to perfect his appeal because he did not
pay the supersedeas bond. It also affirmed
the
Labor
Arbiters
decision
with
modification of the award for separation
pay to four other employees who were
similarly situated. Upon finality of the
decision, respondents moved for its
execution.[9]
To answer for the monetary award, NLRC
Acting Sheriff Romeo Pasustento issued a
Notice of Sale on Execution of Personal
Property[10] over the property in the name
of of Paquito V. Ando x x x married to
Erlinda S. Ando.
ACTION FOR PROHIBITION AND DAMAGES
+ TRO. Petitioner claimed that the
property belonged to him and his wife, not
to the corporation, and, hence, could not
be subject of the execution sale. Since it is
the corporation that was the judgment
debtor, execution should be made on the
latters properties.[11]
RTC: denied the prayer for TRO holding
that the trial court had no jurisdiction to
try and decide the case. Still, it went on to
decide the merits of the case.
CA: affirmed
HELD:
Petition is meritorious.
The Court has long recognized that regular
courts have no jurisdiction to hear and
decide questions which arise from and are
incidental to the enforcement of decisions,
orders, or awards rendered in labor cases
by appropriate officers and tribunals of the
Department of Labor and Employment. To
hold otherwise is to sanction splitting of
jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the
orderly administration of justice.
Thus,
it
is,
first
and
foremost,
the NLRC Manual on the Execution of
Judgment that governs any question on
the execution of a judgment of that body.
Petitioner need not look further than that.
The Rules of Court apply only by analogy
or in a suppletory character .
THIRD-PARTY CLAIM. On the other hand,
the NLRC Manual on the Execution of
Judgment deals specifically with
thirdparty claims in cases brought before that
body. It defines a third-party claim as one
BERGONIO, ET AL
ASIAN AIRLINES
FACTS:
SOUTH
EAST
respondents
depositary
bank
in
the
amount
of P1,900,000.00
xxxx
In any event, the decision of the Labor
Arbiter
reinstating
a
dismissed
or
separated employee, insofar as the
reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall
immediately
be
executory,
pending
appeal. The employee shall either be
admitted back to work under the same
terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal or separation or, at the option of
the employer, merely reinstated in the
payroll. The posting of a bond by the
employer shall not stay the execution for
reinstatement provided herein. [Emphasis
and underscoring supplied]
IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY.
Under
paragraph 3, Article 223 of the Labor
Code, the LAs order for the reinstatement
of an employee found illegally dismissed is
immediately
executory
even
during
pendency of the employers appeal from
the decision. Under this provision, the
employer must reinstate the employee
either by physically admitting him under
the conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal, and paying his wages; or, at the
employers option, merely reinstating the
employee in the payroll until the decision
is reversed by the higher court. 22 Failure of
the employer to comply with the
reinstatement order, by exercising the
options in the alternative, renders him
liable to pay the employees salaries.
Otherwise stated, a dismissed employee
whose case was favorably decided by the
LA is entitled to receive wages pending
appeal
upon
reinstatement,
which
reinstatement
is
immediately
executory.24 Unless the appellate tribunal
issues a restraining order, the LA is duty
bound to implement the order of
reinstatement and the employer has no
option but to comply with it.
ORDER
OF
REINSTATEMENT
SELFEXECUTORY. Moreover, and equally worth
emphasizing, is that an order of
reinstatement issued by the LA is selfexecutory, i.e., the dismissed employee
need not even apply for and the LA need
not even issue a writ of execution to
BUENVIAJE, ET AL. v CA
FACTS:
Petitioners were former employees of
Cottonway Marketing Corp. (Cottonway),
hired as promo girls for their garment
products. In October, 1994, after their
services were terminated as the company
was allegedly suffering business losses,
petitioners filed with the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint
for illegal dismissal, underpayment of
salary, and non-payment of premium pay
for rest day, service incentive leave pay
and thirteenth month pay against
Cottonway Marketing Corp. and Network
Fashion Inc./JCT International Trading.[1]
LA: retrenchment valid and ordered LA to
pay the separation pay and 13th month
pay
NLRC: reinstated + backwages
MR: denied
On August 30, 1996, Cottonway filed with
the NLRC a manifestation stating that they
have complied with the order of
reinstatement by sending notices dated
June 5, 1996 requiring the petitioners to
return to work, but to no avail; and
consequently, they sent letters to
petitioners
dated
August
1,
1996
informing them that they have lost their
employment for failure to comply with the
return to work order.[5] Cottonway also
filed a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court which was dismissed on
October 14, 1996.
SUPPLEMENTAL MANIFESTATION. Praying
that the NLRC allow the reception of evid.
w/ r.t their claims that petitioners have
found new employment
Labor Arbiter Romulus S. Protasio issued
an Order declaring that the award of
backwages and proportionate thirteenth
month pay to petitioners should be limited
from the time of their illegal dismissal up
to the time they received the notice of
termination sent by the company upon
their refusal to report for work despite the
order of reinstatement. He cited the fact
that petitioners failed to report to their
posts without justifiable reason despite
respondent's order requiring them to
return to work immediately. The Labor
Arbiter
ordered
the
Research
and
COLLEGE
OF
CONCEPTION v NLRC
IMMACULATE
FACTS:
Petitioner College of
the
Immaculate
Conception, through its former President
Rev. Fr. Antonio A.Mangahas, Jr., appointed
respondent Atty. Marius F. Carlos on June
1, 1995 as Acting Dean of the Department
of
Business
Administration
and
Accountancy. Thereafter,
in
a
letter
dated May 23, 1996, petitioner informed
respondent of his appointment as Dean of
the Department of Business, Economics
and
Accountancy
effective June
1,
1996 until May
31,
2000. Respondent
served as Dean of said department for the
designated term.
LETTER. Petitioner reminded respondent
that upon the expiration of his term as
Dean, he will be appointed as full-time
professor of Law and Accounting without
diminution of his teaching salary as
Dean. As promised, on June 1, 2000,
respondent was given eight (8) teaching
loads as full-time professor.
Respondent then requested for the
payment of overload pay, arguing that the
regular full time load of a faculty member
is only six. Petitioner, in a letter dated July
3, 2000, denied respondent's claim for
overload pay and explained that pursuant
to the Faculty Manual, a full time faculty
member, such as the respondent, is one
who teaches at least twenty-four units or
eight (8) teaching loads per semester in
the College Department.
REPLY. In the same letter, petitioner
requested the respondent to vacate the
Dean's office. Petitioner also directed
respondent to explain why no disciplinary
action should be taken against him for
engaging in the practice of law and
teaching law in another law school without
prior permission from the petitioner.
In his written reply, respondent admitted
that
he
was
teaching
at Araullo University without
written
permission because it was unnecessary. As
to his law practice, he explained that the
only case he was handling was a petition
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,
which was referred to him by petitioner's
Vice-President
for
Academic
Affairs. Respondent said that his demotion
from Dean of the Department to a Faculty
member was without legal basis and that
the non-renewal of his appointment as
Dean was arbitrary, capricious, unlawful,
tainted with abuse of discretion, and
injurious to his integrity and reputation.
Further, the subsequent appointment
of other personnel as
was violative of the law.
acting
Dean
LAs
decision
reached
continuance or postponement of a
scheduled hearing, for instance, or an
inaction on the part of the Labor
Arbiter or the NLRC could easily delay
the issuance of the writ thereby
setting at naught the strict mandate
and noble purpose envisioned by
Article 223. In other words, if the
requirements of Article 224 [including
the
issuance
of
a
writ
of
execution] were to govern, as we so
declared
in Maranaw, then
the
executory nature of a reinstatement
order or award contemplated by
Article
223
will
be
unduly
circumscribed
and
rendered
ineffectual.
IN THE CASE AT BAR: PFIZER did not
immediately admit respondent back to
work which, according to the law, should
have been done as soon as an order or
award of reinstatement is handed down by
the Labor Arbiter without need for the
issuance of a writ of execution.
It would also seem that PFIZER waited for
the resolution of its appeal to the NLRC
and, only after it was ordered by the Labor
Arbiter
to
pay
the
amount
of P1,963,855.00
representing
respondents
full
backwages
from
December 5, 2003 up to May 5, 2005, did
PFIZER decide to require respondent to
report back to work via the Letter in June
2005.
REINSTATEMENT;
SAME
TERMS
AND
CONDITIONS. To reiterate, under Article
223 of the Labor Code, an employee
entitled to reinstatement "shall either be
admitted back to work under the same
terms and conditions prevailing prior to
his dismissal or separation or, at the
option of the employer, merely reinstated
in the payroll."
IN THE CASE AT BAR: Applying the
foregoing principle to the case before us, it
cannot be said that with PFIZERs June 27,
2005 Letter, in belated fulfillment of the
Labor Arbiters reinstatement order, it had
shown a clear intent to reinstate
NO
REASON
OR
JUSTIFICATION
RE
CHANGE
OF
POSITION
NOTE: Moreover, while the Court has
upheld the employers right to choose
between actually reinstating an employee
or merely reinstating him in the payroll,
we have also in the past recognized that
reinstatement might no longer be possible
under certain circumstances. In F.F. Marine
Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission,29 we had the occasion to
state:
It is well-settled that when a person is
illegally dismissed, he is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages. In the event, however, that
reinstatement is no longer feasible, or if
the
employee
decides
not
be
reinstated, the employer shall pay him
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
Such a rule is likewise observed in the
case of a strained employer-employee
relationship or when the work or position
formerly held by the dismissed employee
no longer exists. In sum, an illegally
FACTS:
WENPHIL v ABING
FACTS:
This case stemmed from a complaint for
illegal dismissal filed by the respondents
against Wenphil.
compromise
agreement13 before
LA
Bartolabac.
They
agreed
to
the
respondents payroll reinstatement while
Wenphils appeal with the NLRC was
ongoing. Wenphil also agreed to pay the
accumulated salaries of the respondents
for the payroll period from April 5, 2001
until October 15, 2001.14 As for the
remaining payroll period starting October
16, 2001, Wenphil committed itself to
credit the respective salaries of the
respondents to their ATM payroll accounts
until such time that the questioned
decision of LA Bartolabac is either
modified, amended or reversed by the
Honorable
National
Labor
Relations
Commission.15
NLRC:
affirmed w/ modif instead of
ordering the respondents reinstatement,
the NLRC directed Wenphil to pay the
respondents their resp. separation pay at
the rate of 1 month salary for each yr of
service
CA: reversed; there was enough evid. that
the respondents are quilty of serious
misconduct thus their dismissal was for a
valid cause.
SC: denied the petition for review; they did
NOT file MR thus the decision was final
and executory.
MOTION FOR RECOMPUTATION. After the
SC Decision became final and executory,
the respondents filed w/ LA Bartolabac a
motion for recomputation and issuance of
writ of execution. granted and directed
Wenphil to pay each complainant their
salaries on resintatement
CONTENTION: they are no longer entitled
to backwages bec. of the compromise
agreement they executed.
NLRC: affirmed
CA: reversed the
prescribed a diff.com
NLRC
ruling
and
2
RELIEFS.
We
point
out
that
reinstatement and backwages are two
separate reliefs available to an illegally
dismissed
employee.
The
normal
consequences of a finding that an
employee has been illegally dismissed are:
first, that the employee becomes
entitled to reinstatement to his
former position without loss of
seniority rights; and second, the
payment of backwages covers the
period running from his illegal
dismissal
up
to
his
actual
reinstatement.48 These two reliefs are
not inconsistent with one another
and the labor arbiter can award both
simultaneously.
NOTE:
Moreover,
the
relief
of
separation pay may be granted in lieu
of reinstatement but it cannot be a
substitute
for
the
payment
of
backwages.
In
instances
where
reinstatement is no longer feasible
because
of
strained
relations
between the employee and the
employer, separation pay should be
granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed
BACKWAGES
Compensation that
should have been
earned but were not
collected
because
of
the
unjust
dismissal.
while
that
for
backwages is the
actual period when
the employee was
unlawfully
prevented
from
working.51