7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

ENBANC

JUANITOA.GARCIAand
ALBERTOJ.DUMAGO,
Petitioners,

versus

PHILIPPINEAIRLINES,INC.,
Respondent.

G.R.No.164856
Present:

PUNO,C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,and

BRION,JJ.

Promulgated:

January20,2009
xx

DECISION

CARPIOMORALES,J.:

PetitionersJuanitoA.GarciaandAlbertoJ.DumagoassailtheDecember5,2003Decisionand
[1]
April16,2004ResolutionoftheCourtofAppeals inCAG.R.SPNo.69540whichgranted
thepetitionforcertiorariofrespondent,PhilippineAirlines,Inc.(PAL),anddeniedpetitioners
MotionforReconsideration,respectively.ThedispositiveportionoftheassailedDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsideredandinviewoftheforegoing,theinstantpetitionishereby
GIVENDUECOURSE.TheassailedNovember26,2001ResolutionaswellastheJanuary28,
2002 Resolution of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] is hereby
ANNULLEDandSETASIDEforhavingbeenissuedwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Writ of Execution and the Notice of
GarnishmentissuedbytheLaborArbiterareherebylikewiseANNULLEDandSETASIDE.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

1/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

[2]
SOORDERED.

The case stemmed from the administrative charge filed by PAL against its employeesherein
[3]
petitioners after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu when a team of
company security personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical Centers Toolroom
SectiononJuly24,1995.

Afterduenotice,PALdismissedpetitionersonOctober9,1995fortransgressingthePALCode
[4]
of Discipline, prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages which
[5]
was, by Decision of January 11, 1999, resolved by the Labor Arbiter in their favor, thus
orderingPALto,interalia,immediatelycomplywiththereinstatementaspectofthedecision.
Prior to the promulgation of the Labor Arbiters decision, the Securities and Exchange
Commission(SEC)placedPAL(hereafterreferredtoasrespondent),whichwassufferingfrom
severe financial losses, under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver, who was subsequently
replacedbyaPermanentRehabilitationReceiveronJune7,1999.

From the Labor Arbiters decision, respondent appealed to the NLRC which, by Resolution of
January31,2000,reversedsaiddecisionanddismissedpetitionerscomplaintforlackofmerit.
[6]

PetitionersMotionforReconsiderationwasdeniedbyResolutionofApril28,2000 and
[7]
EntryofJudgmentwasissuedonJuly13,2000.

Subsequently or on October 5, 2000, the Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution (Writ)
respectingthereinstatementaspectofhisJanuary11,1999Decision,andonOctober25,2000,
heissuedaNoticeofGarnishment(Notice).RespondentthereuponmovedtoquashtheWritand
tolifttheNoticewhilepetitionersmovedtoreleasethegarnishedamount.

Inarelatedmove,respondentfiledanUrgentPetitionforInjunctionwiththeNLRCwhich,by
ResolutionsofNovember26,2001andJanuary28,2002,affirmedthevalidityoftheWritand
the Notice issued by the Labor Arbiter but suspended and referred the action to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

2/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

RehabilitationReceiverforappropriateaction.

Respondent elevated the matter to the appellate court which issued the herein challenged
Decision and Resolution nullifying the NLRC Resolutions on two grounds, essentially
espousingthat:(1)asubsequentfindingofavaliddismissalremovesthebasisforimplementing
thereinstatementaspectofalaborarbitersdecision(thefirstground),and(2)theimpossibility
to comply with the reinstatement order due to corporate rehabilitation provides a reasonable
justification for the failure to exercise the options under Article 223 of the Labor Code (the
secondground).

ByDecisionofAugust29,2007,thisCourtPARTIALLYGRANTEDthepresentpetitionand
effectivelyreinstatedtheNLRCResolutionsinsofarasitsuspendedtheproceedings,viz:

Since petitioners claim against PAL is a money claim for their wages during the pendency of
PALs appeal to the NLRC, the same should have been suspended pending the rehabilitation
proceedings.TheLaborArbiter,theNLRC,aswellastheCourtofAppealsshouldhaveabstained
from resolving petitioners case for illegal dismissal and should instead have directed them to
lodgetheirclaimbeforePALsreceiver.
However, to still require petitioners at this time to refile their labor claim against PAL under
peculiar circumstances of the case that their dismissal was eventually held valid with only the
matter of reinstatement pending appeal being the issue this Court deems it legally expedient to
suspendtheproceedingsinthiscase.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED in that the instant proceedings
hereinareSUSPENDEDuntilfurthernoticefromthisCourt.Accordingly,respondentPhilippine
Airlines,Inc.isherebyDIRECTEDtoquarterlyupdatetheCourtastothestatusofitsongoing
rehabilitation.Nocosts.

[8]
SOORDERED. (Italicsintheoriginalunderscoringsupplied)

ByManifestationandComplianceofOctober30,2007,respondentinformedtheCourtthatthe
SEC, by Order of September 28, 2007, granted its request to exit from rehabilitation
[9]
proceedings.
Inviewoftheterminationoftherehabilitationproceedings,theCourtnowproceedstoresolve
the remaining issue for consideration, which is whether petitioners may collect their wages
duringtheperiodbetweentheLaborArbitersorderofreinstatementpendingappealand
theNLRCdecisionoverturningthatoftheLaborArbiter,nowthatrespondenthasexited
fromrehabilitationproceedings.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

3/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

AmplificationoftheFirstGround
Theappellatecourtcountedonasitsfirstgroundtheviewthatasubsequentfindingofavalid
dismissal removes the basis for implementing the reinstatement aspect of a labor arbiters
decision.

On this score, the Courts attention is drawn to seemingly divergent decisions concerning
reinstatementpendingappealor,particularly,theoptionofpayrollreinstatement.On the one
handisthejurisprudentialtrendasexpoundedinalineofcasesincludingAirPhilippinesCorp.
[10]
v. Zamora,
while on the other is the recent case of Genuino v. National Labor Relations
[11]
Commission.
At the core of the seeming divergence is the application of paragraph 3 of
Article223oftheLaborCodewhichreads:
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.Theemployeeshalleitherbeadmittedbacktoworkunderthesametermsandconditions
prevailingpriortohisdismissalorseparationor,attheoptionoftheemployer,merelyreinstated
in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for
reinstatementprovidedherein.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

Theviewasmaintainedinanumberofcasesisthat:
xxx[E]venifthe order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is
obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed
employeeduringtheperiodofappealuntilreversalbythehighercourt.Ontheotherhand,if
the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is
reversedwithfinality,theemployeeisnotrequiredtoreimbursewhateversalaryhereceivedfor
[12]
heisentitledtosuch,moresoifheactuallyrenderedservicesduringtheperiod.
(Emphasisin
theoriginalitalicsandunderscoringsupplied)

Inotherwords,adismissedemployeewhosecasewasfavorablydecidedbytheLaborArbiteris
entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory.
Unless there is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the
[13]
orderofreinstatementanditismandatoryontheemployertocomplytherewith.

TheoppositeviewisarticulatedinGenuinowhichstates:
Ifthedecisionofthelaborarbiterislaterreversedonappealuponthefindingthatthegroundfor
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

4/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

dismissal is valid, then the employer has the right to require the dismissed employee on
payrollreinstatementtorefundthesalariess/hereceivedwhilethecasewaspendingappeal,or
itcanbedeductedfromtheaccruedbenefitsthatthedismissedemployeewasentitledtoreceive
from his/her employer under existing laws, collective bargaining agreement provisions, and
companypractices.However,iftheemployeewasreinstatedtoworkduringthependencyofthe
appeal, then the employee is entitled to the compensation received for actual services rendered
withoutneedofrefund.
ConsideringthatGenuinowasnotreinstatedtoworkorplacedonpayrollreinstatement,andher
dismissalisbasedonajustcause,thensheisnotentitledtobepaidthesalariesstatedinitemno.
[14]
3ofthefallooftheSeptember3,1994NLRCDecision.
(Emphasis,italicsandunderscoring
supplied)

Ithasthusbeenadvancedthatthereisnopointinreleasingthewagestopetitionerssincetheir
dismissalwasfoundtobevalid,andtodosowouldconstituteunjustenrichment.

PriortoGenuino,therehadbeennoknownsimilarcasecontainingadispositiveportionwhere
theemployeewasrequiredtorefundthesalariesreceivedonpayrollreinstatement.Infact,ina
[15]
catena of cases,
the Court did not order the refund of salaries garnished or received by
payrollreinstatedemployeesdespiteasubsequentreversalofthereinstatementorder.

The dearth of authority supporting Genuino is not difficult to fathom for it would otherwise
renderinutiletherationaleofreinstatementpendingappeal.

x x x [T]he law itself has laid down a compassionate policy which, once more, vivifies and
enhancestheprovisionsofthe1987Constitutiononlaborandtheworkingman.

xxxx

ThesedutiesandresponsibilitiesoftheStateareimposednotsomuchtoexpresssympathyforthe
workingmanastoforcefullyandmeaningfullyunderscorelaborasaprimarysocialandeconomic
force,whichtheConstitutionalsoexpresslyaffirmswithequalintensity.Laborisanindispensable
partnerforthenation'sprogressandstability.

xxxx
x x x In short, with respect to decisions reinstating employees, the law itself has determined a
sufficientlyoverwhelmingreasonforitsexecutionpendingappeal.

xxxx
x x x Then, by and pursuant to the same power (police power), the State may authorize an
immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated
employeesincethatsavingactisdesignedtostop,althoughtemporarilysincetheappealmaybe
decidedinfavoroftheappellant,acontinuingthreatordangertothesurvivaloreventhelifeof
[16]
thedismissedorseparatedemployeeandhisfamily.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

5/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law
doctrine of unjust enrichment espoused by Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. in his Separate
Opinion. The constitutional and statutory precepts portray the otherwise unjust situation as a
conditionaffordingfullprotectiontolabor.

Evenoutsidethetheoreticaltrappingsofthediscussionandintothemundanerealitiesofhuman
experience, the refund doctrine easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor
Arbitercouldharm,morethanhelp,adismissedemployee.Theemployee,tomakebothends
meet,wouldnecessarilyhavetouseupthesalariesreceivedduringthependencyoftheappeal,
onlytoenduphavingtorefundthesumincaseofafinalunfavorabledecision.Itismirageofa
stopgapleadingtheemployeetoariskycliffofinsolvency.

Advisably,thesumisbetterleftunspent.Itbecomesmorelogicalandpracticalfortheemployee
torefusepayrollreinstatementandsimplyfindworkelsewhereintheinterim,ifanyisavailable.
Notably, the option of payroll reinstatement belongs to the employer, even if the employee is
ableandraringtoreturntowork.PriortoGenuino, it is unthinkable for one to refuse payroll
reinstatement. In the face of the grim possibilities, the rise of concerned employees declining
payrollreinstatementisonthehorizon.

Further,theGenuinorulingnotonlydisregardsthesocialjusticeprinciplesbehindtherule,but
also institutes a scheme unduly favorable to management. Under such scheme, the salaries
dispensedpendentelitemerelyserveasabondpostedininstallmentbytheemployer.Forinthe
eventofareversaloftheLaborArbitersdecisionorderingreinstatement,theemployergetsback
the same amount without having to spend ordinarily for bond premiums. This circumvents, if
not directly contradicts, the proscription that the posting of a bond [even a cash bond] by the
[17]
employershallnotstaytheexecutionforreinstatement.

In playing down the stray posture in Genuino requiring the dismissed employee on payroll
reinstatementtorefundthesalariesincaseafinaldecisionupholdsthevalidityofthedismissal,
theCourtrealignsthepropercourseoftheprevailingdoctrineonreinstatementpendingappeal
visvistheeffectofareversalonappeal.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

6/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

RespondentinsiststhatwiththereversaloftheLaborArbitersDecision,thereisnomore
basistoenforcethereinstatementaspectofthesaiddecision.In his Separate Opinion, Justice
Presbitero Velasco, Jr. supports this argument and finds the prevailing doctrine in Air
Philippinesandalliedcasesinapplicablebecause,unlikethepresentcase,thewritofexecution
thereinwassecuredpriortothereversaloftheLaborArbitersdecision.

The proposition is tenuous. First, the matter is treated as a mere race against time. The
discussion stopped there without considering the cause of the delay. Second, it requires the
issuance of a writ of execution despite the immediately executory nature of the reinstatement
[18]
aspectofthedecision.InPioneerTexturingCorp.v.NLRC,
whichwascitedinPanuncillo
[19]
v.CAPPhilippines,Inc.,
theCourtobserved:

xxxTheprovisionofArticle223isclearthatanaward[bytheLaborArbiter]forreinstatement
shallbeimmediatelyexecutoryevenpendingappealandthepostingofabondbytheemployer
shallnotstaytheexecutionforreinstatement.Thelegislativeintentisquiteobvious,i.e.,tomake
an award of reinstatement immediately enforceable, even pending appeal. To require the
application for and issuance of a writ of execution as prerequisites for the execution of a
reinstatementawardwouldcertainlybetrayandruncountertotheveryobjectandintentof
Article 223, i.e., the immediate execution of a reinstatement order. The reason is simple. An
application for a writ of execution and its issuance could be delayed for numerous reasons. A
merecontinuanceorpostponementofascheduledhearing,forinstance,oraninactiononthepart
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
requirementsofArticle224[includingtheissuanceofawritofexecution]weretogovern,aswe
so declared in Maranaw, then the executory nature of a reinstatement order or award
contemplated byArticle 223 willbe unduly circumscribed and rendered ineffectual.Inenacting
thelaw,thelegislatureispresumedtohaveordainedavalidandsensiblelaw,onewhichoperates
no further than may be necessary to achieve its specific purpose. Statutes, as a rule, are to be
construedinthelightofthepurposetobeachievedandtheevilsoughttoberemedied.xxxIn
introducing a new rule on the reinstatement aspect of a labor decision under Republic Act No.
[20]
6715, Congress should not be considered to be indulging in mere semantic exercise. x x x
(Italicsintheoriginalemphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

TheCourtreaffirmstheprevailingprinciplethateveniftheorderofreinstatementoftheLabor
Arbiterisreversedonappeal,itisobligatoryonthepartoftheemployertoreinstateandpaythe
wagesofthedismissedemployeeduringtheperiodofappealuntilreversalbythehighercourt.
[21]
ItsettlestheviewthattheLaborArbiter'sorderofreinstatementisimmediatelyexecutory
and the employer has to either readmit them to work under the same terms and conditions
prevailingpriortotheirdismissal,ortoreinstatetheminthepayroll,andthatfailingtoexercise
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

7/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

[22]

theoptionsinthealternative,employermustpaytheemployeessalaries.

AmplificationoftheSecondGround

The remaining issue, nonetheless, is resolved in the negative on the strength of the second
ground relied upon by the appellate court in the assailed issuances. The Court sustains the
appellate courts finding that the peculiar predicament of a corporate rehabilitation rendered it
impossibleforrespondenttoexerciseitsoptionunderthecircumstances.

ThespiritoftheruleonreinstatementpendingappealanimatestheproceedingsoncetheLabor
Arbiterissuesthedecisioncontaininganorderofreinstatement.Theimmediacyofitsexecution
needsnofurtherelaboration.Reinstatementpendingappealnecessitatesitsimmediateexecution
duringthependencyoftheappeal,ifthelawistoserveitsnoblepurpose.Atthesametime,any
attemptonthepartoftheemployertoevadeordelayitsexecution,asobservedinPanuncillo
[23]
[24]
[25]
and as what actually transpired in Kimberly,
Composite,
Air Philippines,
and
[26]
Roquero,
shouldnotbecountenanced.

After the labor arbiters decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be
barred from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the
reinstatementpendingappealwaswithoutfaultonthepartoftheemployer.

The test is twofold: (1) there must be actual delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement
pendingappealwasnotexecutedpriortoitsreversaland(2)thedelaymustnotbeduetothe
employersunjustifiedactoromission.If the delay is due to the employers unjustified refusal,
theemployermaystillberequiredtopaythesalariesnotwithstandingthereversaloftheLabor
Arbitersdecision.

InGenuino,therewasnoshowingthattheemployerrefusedtoreinstatetheemployee,whowas
the Treasury Sales Division Head, during the short span of four months or from the
promulgation on May 2, 1994 of the Labor Arbiters Decision up to the promulgation on
September3,1994oftheNLRCDecision.Notably,theformerNLRCRulesofProceduredid
not lay down a mechanism to promptly effectuate the selfexecutory order of reinstatement,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

8/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

makingitdifficulttoestablishthattheemployeractuallyrefusedtocomply.

[27]
InasituationlikethatinInternationalContainerTerminalServices,Inc.v.NLRC
whereit
wasallegedthattheemployerwaswillingtocomplywiththeorderandthattheemployeeopted
not to pursue the execution of the order, the Court upheld the selfexecutory nature of the
reinstatement order and ruled that the salary automatically accrued from notice of the Labor
Arbiter'sorderofreinstatementuntilitsultimatereversalbytheNLRC.Itwaslaterdiscovered
thattheemployeeindeedmovedfortheissuanceofawritbutwasnotacteduponbytheLabor
Arbiter.InthatscenariowherethedelaywascausedbytheLaborArbiter,itwasruledthatthe
inactionoftheLaborArbiterwhofailedtoactupontheemployeesmotionfortheissuanceofa
writofexecutionmaynolongeradverselyaffectthecauseofthedismissedemployeeinviewof
[28]
theselfexecutorynatureoftheorderofreinstatement.

The new NLRC Rules of Procedure, which took effect on January 7, 2006, now require the
employertosubmitareport of compliance within 10 calendar days from receipt of the Labor
[29]
Arbiters decision,
disobedience to which clearly denotes a refusal to reinstate. The
employeeneednotfileamotionfortheissuanceofthewritofexecutionsincetheLaborArbiter
shallthereaftermotuproprioissuethewrit.Withthenewrulesinplace,thereishardlyany
difficulty in determining the employers intransigence in immediately complying with the
order.
[30]
In the case at bar, petitioners exerted efforts
to execute the Labor Arbiters order of
reinstatementuntiltheywereabletosecureawritofexecution,albeitissuedonOctober5,2000
afterthereversalbytheNLRCoftheLaborArbitersdecision.Technically,therewasstillactual
delaywhichbringstothequestionofwhetherthedelaywasduetorespondentsunjustifiedact
oromission.

It is apparent that there was inaction on the part of respondent to reinstate them, but
whether such omission was justified depends on the onset of the exigency of corporate
rehabilitation.

ItissettledthatuponappointmentbytheSECofarehabilitationreceiver,allactionsforclaims
[31]
beforeanycourt,tribunalorboardagainstthecorporationshallipsojurebesuspended.
As
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

9/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

statedearlyon,duringthependencyofpetitionerscomplaintbeforetheLaborArbiter,theSEC
placed respondent under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver. After the Labor Arbiter rendered
his decision, the SEC replaced the Interim Rehabilitation Receiver with a Permanent
RehabilitationReceiver.

Caselawrecognizesthatunlessthereisarestrainingorder,theimplementationoftheorderof
[32]
reinstatement is ministerial and mandatory.
This injunction or suspension of claims by
[33]
legislative fiat
partakes of the nature of a restraining order that constitutes a legal
justificationforrespondentsnoncompliancewiththereinstatementorder. Respondents failure
to exercise the alternative options of actual reinstatement and payroll reinstatement was thus
justified.Suchbeingthecase,respondentsobligationtopaythesalariespendingappeal,asthe
normaleffectofthenonexerciseoftheoptions,didnotattach.

Whilereinstatementpendingappealaimstoavertthecontinuingthreatordangertothesurvival
or even the life of the dismissed employee and his family, it does not contemplate the period
when the employercorporation itself is similarly in a judicially monitored state of being
resuscitatedinordertosurvive.

The parallelism between a judicial order of corporation rehabilitation as a justification for the
nonexercise of its options, on the one hand, and a claim of actual and imminent substantial
losses as ground for retrenchment, on the other hand, stops at the red line on the financial
statements. Beyond the analogous condition of financial gloom, as discussed by Justice
LeonardoQuisumbinginhisSeparateOpinion,aremoresalientdistinctions.Unliketheground
of substantial losses contemplated in a retrenchment case, the state of corporate rehabilitation
wasjudiciallypredeterminedbyacompetentcourtandnotformulatedforthefirsttimeinthis
casebyrespondent.

More importantly, there are legal effects arising from a judicial order placing a corporation
under rehabilitation. Respondent was, during the period material to the case, effectively
deprivedofthealternativechoicesunderArticle223oftheLaborCode,notonlybyvirtueof
thestatutoryinjunctionbutalsoinviewoftheinterimrelinquishmentofmanagementcontrolto
givewaytothefullexerciseofthepowersoftherehabilitationreceiver.Hadtherebeennoneed
torehabilitate,respondentmayhaveoptedforactualphysicalreinstatementpendingappealto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

10/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

optimizetheutilizationofresources.Thenagain,thoughthemanagementmaythinkthiswise,
therehabilitationreceivermaydecideotherwise,nottomentionthesubsistenceoftheinjunction
onclaims.

Insum,theobligationtopaytheemployeessalariesupontheemployersfailuretoexercisethe
alternativeoptionsunderArticle223oftheLaborCodeisnotahardandfastrule,considering
theinherentconstraintsofcorporaterehabilitation.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisPARTIALLYDENIED.InsofarastheCourtofAppeals
Decision of December 5, 2003 and Resolution of April 16, 2004 annulling the NLRC
ResolutionsaffirmingthevalidityoftheWritofExecutionandtheNoticeofGarnishmentare
concerned,theCourtfindsnoreversibleerror.

SOORDERED.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

11/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Iherebycertifythattheconclusionsin
theaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriter
oftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
JusticesMarinaL.Buzon,SergioL.Pestao(ponente)andJoseC.Mendozacomprisedthe[Former]FourteenthDivisionofthe
appellatecourt.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

12/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

[2]
Rollo,pp.4748.
[3]
JuanitoA.GarciaandAlbertoJ.Dumagowereemployedasaircraftinspectorandaircraftfurnishermaster,respectively.
[4]
Particularly,ChapterII,Section6,Articles46(ViolationofLaw/GovernmentRegulations)and48(ProhibitedDrugs).
[5]
Records,Vol.1,p.167.ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionpennedbyLaborArbiterRamonValentinReyesreads:
WHEREFORE,conformablywiththeforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingtherespondentsguiltyofillegal
suspensionandillegaldismissalandorderingthemtoreinstatecomplainantstotheirformerpositionwithoutloss
ofseniorityrightsandotherprivileges.Respondentsareherebyfurtherorderedtopayjointlyandseverallyunto
thecomplainantsthefollowing:
AlbertoJ.DumagoP409,500.00backwagesasof1/10/99
34,125.00for13thmonthpay
JuanitoA.GarciaP1,290,744.00backwagesasof1/10/99
107,562.00for13thmonthpay
[t]heamountsofP100,000.00andP50,000.00toeachcomplainantasandbywayofmoralandexemplarydamages
and
[t]hesumequivalenttotenpercent(10%)ofthetotalawardasandforattorneysfees.
RespondentsaredirectedtoimmediatelycomplywiththereinstatementaspectofthisDecision.However,intheeventthat
reinstatementisnolongerfeasible,respondentisherebyordered,inlieuthereof,topayuntothecomplainantstheir
separationpaycomputedatonemonthfor[e]veryyearofservice.
SOORDERED.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
[6]
Records,Vol.1.pp.174186.
[7]
Id,at209.AsecondlookattheantecedentsofthemaincaserevealsthatpetitionerswentoncertioraritotheCourtofAppealsto
challenge the finding of the validity of their dismissal.By Resolutions of August 10, 2000 and November 5, 2003, the
appellatecourtdismissedthepetitiondocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.59826anddeniedreconsiderationthereofontechnical
grounds.ByDecisionofJune8,2005,theCourtreversedthetworesolutionsandremandedthecasetotheappellatecourt
for further proceedings. viderollo, pp. 218219 Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 160798, June 8, 2005, 459
SCRA768.Theappellatecourt,byDecisionofMarch28,2008andResolutionofJuly11,2008,dismissedthepetition.

[8]
Garciav.PhilippineAirlines,Inc.,G.R.No.164856,August29,2007,531SCRA574,582583.PennedbyJusticeLeonardoA.
Quisumbing.
[9]
Rollo,pp.250257.
[10]
G.R.No.148247,August7,2006,498SCRA59.
[11]
G.R.Nos.14273233,December4,2007,539SCRA342.
[12]
Supranote10at7273.
[13]
Roquerov.PhilippineAirlines,449Phil.437,446(2003).
[14]
Supranote11at363364.TheCourtthereinsustainedtheNLRCsreversaloftheLaborArbitersdecisionbutcancelledthe
NLRCsawardofsalariesaccruingfromtheLaborArbitersorderofreinstatementpendingappeal.
[15]
Composite Enterprises, Inc. v. Caparoso, G.R. No. 159919, August 8, 2007, 529 SCRA 470 Kimberly Clark (Phils), Inc. v.
Facundo,G.R.No.144885,July26,2006(UnsignedResolution)Sanchezv.NLRC,G.R.No.124348,February7,2001
UnsignedResolutionInternationalContainerTerminalServices,Inc.v.NLRC,360Phil.527(1998).
[16]
Roquerov.PhilippineAirlines,supraat445citingAris(Phil.)Inc.v.NLRC,200SCRA246(1991).
[17]
LABORCODE,Article223,par.3.
[18]
345Phil.1057(1997)whichestablishedthedoctrinethatanorderorawardforreinstatementisselfexecutory,meaningthatit
doesnotrequireawritofexecution,muchlessamotionforitsissuance.
[19]
G.R.No.161305,February9,2007,515SCRA323.
[20]
Supranote18at10751076.
[21]
Supranote12.
[22]
KimberlyClark(Phils),Inc.v.Facundo,supra.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

13/14

7/7/2016

G.R.No.164856

[23]
Supra,wherethe3monthssalarywasdelayedbecausetheemployerfiledanotherbaselessmotiontoquashwritofexecution.
[24]
Supra,wheretheemployerdidnotreleasethesalariesdespiteagreeingonpayrollreinstatement,awaitingtheresolutionofits
unmeritoriousMotiontobeAllowedtopaySeparationPayinlieuofReinstatement.
[25]
Supra,wheretheemployerdidnotatallcomplywiththestandingwritofexecution.
[26]
Supra,wheretheemployerrefusedtocomplywiththewritofexecution,arguingthatitfiledapetitionforreviewbeforethe
Court.
[27]
Supra.
[28]
InternationalContainerTerminalServices,Inc.v.NLRC,supra.
[29]
REVISEDRULESOFPROCEDUREOFTHENLRC(2005),RuleV,Sec.14andRuleXI,Sec.6.
[30]
PetitionersstatethatrespondentignoredtheirletterofJune14,1999,promptingthemtofileaMotionforIssuanceofWritof
Execution[oftheLaborArbitersJanuary11,1999]andtoCitetheRespondentsinContemptofNovember11,1999,rollo,
pp.7885,169.
[31]
Garciav.PhilippineAirlines,Inc.,supranote8.
[32]
Roquerov.PhilippineAirlines,supranote13.
[33]
PRES.DECREENo.902A,Sec.6(c),asamended.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/164856.htm

14/14