Facts:

Solidum was dismissed for dishonesty-related offenses. The Labor Arbiter ruled that he was
illegally dismissed and thereby entitled to reinstatement and full back wages. Solidum
received the copy of LAs decision on July 13, 2006. Smart appealed before the NLRC. While
appeal was pending, the LA issued writs of execution covering the period of July 21, 2006 to
January 22, 2009 for the collection of Solidums the accrued salaries, allowances, benefits,
incentives and bonuses.
In January 26, 2009, the NLRC reversed the LAs decision. Solidum filed a motion for
reconsideration.
While waiting for the NLRC resolution, on May 4, 2009, Solidum filed before the LA an ex
parte motion for a writ of execution to be issued ordering the sheriff to collect from Smart
his salaries, etc. which accrued from January 21, 2009 to April 20, 2009. The LA, however,
denied the issuance of writ of execution on the ground that the NLRC has reversed its
decision, so that Solidum is no longer entitled to his claim of reinstatement when the NLRC
decision was rendered.
In May 29, 2009, the NLRC denied Solidums motion for reconsideration. Copy of the decision
was mailed to Solidum on July 11, 2009. In its entry of judgment, it was confirmed that the
NLRC May 29, 2009 resolution has become final and executory on August 10, 2009.
Issue 1: W/N the Labor Arbiter is correct in denying the issuance of writ of
execution
No. The Labor Arbiter should have issued the writ of execution because its reinstatement
order was still enforceable for the period of January 21 to April 20, 2009.
It is a well-settled jurisprudential rule that employees are entitled to their accrued salaries,
allowances, benefits, incentives and bonuses until the NLRCs reversal of the labor
arbiters order of reinstatement becomes final and executory.
Here, the NLRCs May 29, 2009 resolution on Solidums motion for reconsideration became
final on August 10, 2009, as shown in the entry of judgment. Hence, Solidum is entitled to
his reinstatement salaries and benefits which started from July 13, 2006 and until August 10,
2009.
Issue 2: W/N August 10, 2009 is the true date of finality of the May 29, 2009
decision
Yes. Since the Entry of Judgment confirms that August 10, 2009 is the date of finality of the
NLRC decision promulgated on May 29, 2009, then it is so.
As a general rule under Sec 14 of the 2002 New Rules of NLRC Procedure, decisions of the
NLRC shall become final after 10 days from the receipt of the decision by the parties. But
when there is delay as shown by the absence of return card or certification from the post
office, the finality of the decision shall be determined by the Clerk of Court by giving 60
calendar days from the mailing of the decision.

Here, it appears that there was no return card or certification or it was delayed after the
copy of the decision was mailed on June 11, 2009. Hence, an allowance of 60 calendar days
was given for the delay making it final and executory only on August 10, 2009.
Section 14: Finality of the Decision of the Commission and Entry of Judgment (2002 New
Rules of NLRC Procedure)
(a) Finality of the Decisions, Resolutions or Orders of the Commission.
Except as provided in Rule XI, Section 9, the decisions, resolutions or orders of the
Commission/Division shall become executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the
same.
(b) Entry of Judgment.
Upon the expiration of the ten (10) calendar day period provided in paragraph (a)of this
section, the decision/resolution/order shall, as far as practicable, be entered in a book of
entries of judgment.
(c) Allowance for Delay of Mail in the Issuance of Entries of Judgment.
In issuing entries of judgment, the Executive Clerk of Court or the Deputy Executive Clerk, in
the absence of a return card or certification from the post office concerned, shall determine
the finality of the decision by making allowance for delay of mail, computed sixty
(60)calendar days from the date of mailing of the decision, resolution or order.
Section 6: Effect of Filing of Petition for Certiorari on Execution
A petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall not stay the
execution of the assailed decision unless a temporary restraining order is issued by the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Illegal Termination is Inconsistent with Resignation (Fonterra vs Largado, 2015)
Facts:
Fonterra contracted the services of Zytron to provide for trade merchandising
representatives (TMRs) in the marketing and promotion of its milk and dairy products.
Among those TMRs whose services were engaged are Largado and Estrellado, who are the
respondents in this case. After 4 years, Fonterra terminated its contract with Zytron and
entered into an agreement for manpower supply with AC Sicat. Desirous of continuing their
work as TMRs in Fonterra, Largado and Estrellado submitted their job application with AC
Sicat, a legitimate job contracting company. AC Sicat hired their services as TMRs for a term
of 5 months.
When their 5-month contract with AC Sicat were about to expire, they allegedly sought
renewal thereof, which was allegedly refused. This prompted them to file for complaints of
illegal dismissal, regularization, nonpayment of service incentive leave, 13 th month pay, and
actual and moral damages against Fonterra, Zytron and AC Sicat.

Issue 1: W/N Largado and Estrellado were illegally terminated by Zytron

No. When Largado and Estrella refused to renew their contract with Zytron by applying with
AC Sicat, they effectively resigned from Zytron. Hence, they were not illegally dismissed
because they voluntary terminated their employment with the latter.
Issue 2: W/N Largado and Estrellado were illegally terminated by AC Sicat
No. There is no illegal dismissal to speak of since AC Sicat is a legitimate job contractor and
their termination is merely brought about by the expiration of their employment contracts
with AC Sicat.
First, Largado and Estrellado were hired as fixed-term or project employees of AC Sicat. The
determining factor of such employment is not the duty of the employee but the day certain
agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment
relationship. Second, the non-renewal of their contracts by AC Sicat is a management
prerogative, and failure of respondents to prove that such was done in bad faith militates
against their contention that they were illegally dismissed.
Hence, the expiration of their contract with AC Sicat simply caused the natural cessation of
their fixed-term employment thereat.