211. College of the Immaculate Conception v. NLRC Topic: Refund Doctrine Ponente: Peralta, J.

FACTS: Nature: petition for review on certiorari Employer: College of the Immaculate Conception (CIC) Employee: Atty. Marius Carlos, PhD (AC) 6/1/95: CIC through its Pres. Rev. Fr. Mangahas, Jr. appointed AC as Acting Dean of the Dept. of Business Ad and Accountancy 5/23/96: CIC informed AC through a letter of his appointment as Dean of the Dept. of Business, Economics and Accountancy effective 6/1/96 5/31/00 5/15/00: CICs letter to AC reminding him that upon expiration of the term as Dean, he will be appointed as full-time professor of Law and Acctg without diminution of teaching salary 6/1/00: AC was given 8 teaching loads AC requested for payment of overload pay (full-time load only 6) 7/3/00: CICs letter to AC denied request: 8/sem based on Faculty Manual Requested AC to vacate Deans office Directed to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for: Engaging in the practice of law Teaching law in another school without prior permission ACs reply Admitted teaching at Araullo Univ. written permission not necessary Only case he was handling was for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage referred by CICs VP for Academic Affairs Demotion from Dean to faculty member was without legal basis Non-renewal of appointment of Dean was arbitrary, capricious, unlawful CICs reply No demotion term fixed (4Y) 7/17/00: CICs letter to AC giving him 2 options: 1. Remain as full-time professor without teaching loads outside + practice of law prior written approval 2. Become a part-time professor with initial load of 15units complete freedom to teach else and practice his profession lose tenure and load will depends upon evaluation 9/20/00: letter giving him another chance to choose (didnt respond to previous letter) Sec. 16.8, CHED Memorandum No. 19, S1998: faculty members teaching in more than 1 school must give formal notice x x x failure means automatic withdrawal or cancellation of teaching assignment and non-assignment of load for succeeding sem AC requested for more time to reply still failed to reply informed AC he wont be given any teaching load 10/15/00: AC protested teaching in another univ was a privilege he enjoyed since 7/1/99 + act punishable at first instance only with censure or oral reprimand 10/19: filed complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal with payment of backwages and damages

LA: ILLEGALLY DISMISSED REINSTATE AS DEAN + BACKWAGES

LA issued a Writ of Execution CIC opted to reinstate AC in its payroll only

NLRC: NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED REINSTATE AS FULL-TIME PROFESSOR Non-assignment of teaching load merely as sanction pursuant to CHED Memorandum Reinstatement as full-time professor not dean appointment has expired (4Y only) CIC filed Motion for Clarification and/or Partial Reconsideration Not illegally dismissed should be directed to refund all amounts received by way of payroll reinstatement

CA: AFFIRMED ISSUE: WON the subsequent reversal of LAs findings mean that AC should reimburse CIC all salaries and benefits he received pursuant to the immediate execution of LAs erroneous decision ordering his reinstatement as Dean DECISION: NO. NOT REIMBURSE LAs mistake cannot, in any way, alter the fact that during the pendency of the appeal, his order for AC's reinstatement as Dean was immediately executor Art. 223. Appeal. x x x decision of LA reinstating x x x immediately executory, even pending appeal x x x either admitted back to work x x x or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll Divergent decisions on reinstatement pending appeal: Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora: x x x if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period Genuino v. NLRC If the decision of the LA is later reversed on appeal upon the finding that the ground for dismissal is valid, then the employer has the right to require the dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries [he] received while the case was pending appeal, or it can be deducted from the accrued benefits SC upholds Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora illogical and unjust effects of the "refund doctrine" erroneously espoused in Genuino Employee, to make both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the pendency of the appeal, only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision Becomes more logical and practical for the employee to refuse payroll reinstatement and simply find work elsewhere in the interim Manner of immediate reinstatement, pending appeal, or the promptness thereof is immaterial, as illustrated in the 2 scenarios below: Situation #1 (as in Air Phils.): LA ruled in favor of employee employer didnt immediately comply NLRC reversed LAs finding of illegal dismissal Ruling: employee entitled to payment of salaries and allowances pending appeal Situation #2 (present case): LA ruled in favor of employee employer complied reinstating him in its payroll NLRC reversed finding no illegal dismissal Ruling: employee cant be required to reimburse salaries received If not reinstated in the first place: ruling in situation #1 will apply Therefore, either way, employee gets his salaries and allowances pending appeal Only difference: time when employee gets it HELD:

SC: AFFIRMED