Case # 46 Loon vs.

Power Master
FACTS:
- Respondents Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services
employed and assined t!e petitioners as "anitors and leadsmen in
vario#s PLDT o$$ices in Metro Manila area. S#%se&#ently, t!e
petitioners $iled a complaint $or money claims aainst Power
Master, Inc., Tri-C General Services and t!eir o$$icers, t!e spo#ses
'omer and Carina Al#misin (collectively, t!e respondents). T!e
petitioners alleed in t!eir complaint t!at t!ey were not paid
minim#m waes, overtime, !oliday, premi#m, service incentive
leave, and t!irteent! mont! pays. T!ey $#rt!er averred t!at t!e
respondents made t!em sin %lan* payroll s!eets.T!e petitioners
amended t!eir complaint and incl#ded illeal dismissal as t!eir
ca#se o$ action. T!ey claimed t!at t!e respondents relieved t!em
$rom service in retaliation $or t!e $ilin o$ t!eir oriinal complaint.
- T!e +A partially r#led in $avor o$ t!e petitioners. 'owever, t!e +A
denied t!e petitioners, claims $or %ac*waes, overtime, !oliday, and
premi#m pays. T!e +A o%served t!at t!e petitioners $ailed to s!ow
t!at t!ey rendered overtime wor* and wor*ed on !olidays and rest
days wit!o#t compensation. T!e +A $#rt!er concl#ded t!at t!e
petitioners cannot %e declared to !ave %een dismissed $rom
employment %eca#se t!ey did not s!ow any notice o$ termination o$
employment. T!ey were also not %arred $rom enterin t!e
respondents, premises.
- T!e -+RC also vacated t!e +A,s awards o$ salary di$$erential,
t!irteent! mont! and service incentive leave pays. In so r#lin, it
ave wei!t to t!e pieces o$ evidence attac!ed to t!e
memorand#m on appeal and t!e s#pplemental appeal. It
maintained t!at t!e a%sence o$ t!e petitioners, sinat#res in t!e
payrolls was not an indispensa%le $actor $or t!eir a#t!enticity. It
pointed o#t t!at t!e payment o$ money claims was $#rt!er
evidenced %y t!e list o$ employees wit! ATM cards. It also $o#nd
t!at t!e petitioners, sinat#res were not $ored. It too* "#dicial
notice t!at many people #se at least two or more di$$erent
sinat#res.
- T!e -+RC $#rt!er r#led t!at t!e petitioners were law$#lly dismissed
on ro#nds o$ serio#s miscond#ct and will$#l diso%edience. It $o#nd
t!at t!e petitioners $ailed to comply wit! vario#s memoranda
directin t!em to trans$er to ot!er wor*places and to attend trainin
seminars $or t!e intended reorani.ation and res!#$$lin. It denied
t!e petitioners, motion $or reconsideration.
ISS/0S:
1) 2!et!er t!e CA erred w!en it did not $ind t!at t!e -+RC
committed rave a%#se o$ discretion in ivin d#e co#rse to t!e
respondents, appeal3
a) 2!et!er t!e respondents per$ected t!eir appeal %e$ore
t!e -+RC3 and
%) 2!et!er t!e -+RC properly allowed t!e respondents,
s#pplemental appeal
4) 2!et!er t!e respondents were estopped $rom s#%mittin pieces
o$ evidence $or t!e $irst time on appeal3
5) 2!et!er t!e petitioners were illeally dismissed and are t!#s
entitled to %ac*waes3
6) 2!et!er t!e petitioners are entitled to salary di$$erential,
overtime, !oliday, premi#m, service incentive leave, and t!irteent!
mont! pays3 and
7) 2!et!er t!e petitioners are entitled to attorney,s $ees.
'0+8:
1)
a) 9es. T!e respondents per$ected t!eir appeal wit! t!e -+RC %eca#se
t!e revocation o$ t!e %ondin company:s a#t!ority !as a prospective
application. - Pararap! 4, Article 445 o$ t!e +a%or Code provides t!at ;<i=n
case o$ a "#dment involvin a monetary award, an appeal %y t!e employer
may %e per$ected only #pon t!e postin o$ a cas! or s#rety %ond iss#ed %y a
rep#ta%le %ondin company d#ly accredited %y t!e Commission in t!e
amo#nt e&#ivalent to t!e monetary award in t!e "#dment appealed $rom.;
In t!e present case, t!e respondents $iled a s#rety %ond iss#ed %y
Sec#rity Paci$ic Ass#rance Corporation(Security Pacific) on >#ne 4?, 4@@4.
At t!at time, Sec#rity Paci$ic was still an accredited %ondin company.
'owever, t!e -+RC revo*ed its accreditation on Fe%r#ary 1A,
4@@5. -onet!eless, t!is s#%se&#ent revocation s!o#ld not pre"#dice t!e
respondents w!o relied on its t!en s#%sistin accreditation in ood $ait!.
'owever, t!e respondents s!o#ld post a new %ond iss#ed %y an accredited
%ondin company in compliance wit! pararap! 6, Section A, R#le A o$ t!e
-+RC R#les o$ Proced#re. T!is provision states t!at ;a cas! or s#rety %ond
s!all %e valid and e$$ective $rom t!e date o$ deposit or postin, until the
case is finally decided, resolved or terminated or the award satisfied.;
%) 9es. T!e CA also correctly r#led t!at t!e -+RC properly ave d#e
co#rse to t!e respondents, s#pplemental appeal. -eit!er t!e laws nor t!e
r#les re&#ire t!e veri$ication o$ t!e s#pplemental appeal. F#rt!ermore,
veri$ication is a $ormal, not a "#risdictional, re&#irement. It is mainly intended
$or t!e ass#rance t!at t!e matters alleed in t!e pleadin are tr#e and
correct and not o$ mere spec#lation. Also, a s#pplemental appeal is merely
an addend#m to t!e veri$ied memorand#m on appeal t!at was earlier $iled in
t!e present case3 !ence, t!e re&#irement $or veri$ication !as s#%stantially
%een complied wit!.
T!e respondents also timely $iled t!eir s#pplemental appeal on
>an#ary 5, 4@@5. T!e records o$ t!e case s!ow t!at t!e petitioners
t!emselves areed t!at t!e pleadin s!all %e $iled #ntil 8ecem%er 1?, 4@@4.
T!e -+RC $#rt!er eBtended t!e $ilin o$ t!e s#pplemental pleadin #ntil
>an#ary 5, 4@@5 #pon t!e respondents, motion $or eBtension.
4) 9es. T!e -+RC capricio#sly and w!imsically admitted and ave wei!t to
t!e respondents, evidence despite its $indin t!at t!ey vol#ntarily appeared
in t!e comp#lsory ar%itration proceedins. T!e -+RC %latantly disrearded
t!e $act t!at t!e respondents vol#ntarily opted not to participate, to add#ce
evidence in t!eir de$ense and to $ile a position paper despite t!eir *nowlede
o$ t!e pendency o$ t!e proceedins %e$ore t!e +A. T!e respondents were
also rossly nelient in not in$ormin t!e +A o$ t!e speci$ic %#ildin #nit
w!ere t!e respondents were cond#ctin t!eir %#siness and t!eir co#nsel,s
address despite t!eir *nowlede o$ t!eir non-receipt o$ t!e processes.
F#rt!ermore, t!e respondents $ailed to s#$$iciently prove t!e
alleations so#!t to %e proven. 2!y t!e respondents, p!otocopied and
comp#teri.ed copies o$ doc#mentary evidence were not presented at t!e
earliest opport#nity is a serio#s &#estion t!at lends credence to t!e
petitioners, claim t!at t!e respondents $a%ricated t!e evidence $or p#rposes
o$ appeal.
It was inc#m%ent #pon t!e respondents to present t!e oriinals,
especially in t!is case w!ere t!e petitioners !ad s#%mitted t!eir specimen
sinat#res. Instead, t!e respondents e$$ectively deprived t!e petitioners o$
t!e opport#nity to eBamine and controvert t!e alleed sp#rio#s evidence %y
not add#cin t!e oriinals. T!is Co#rt is t!#s le$t wit! no option %#t to r#le
t!at t!e respondents, $ail#re to present t!e oriinals raises t!e pres#mption
t!at evidence will$#lly s#ppressed wo#ld %e adverse i$ prod#ced.
T!e scales o$ "#stice m#st tilt in $avor o$ t!e employees. T!is concl#sion
is consistent wit! t!e r#le t!at t!e employer,s ca#se can only s#cceed on t!e
strent! o$ its own evidence and not on t!e wea*ness o$ t!e employee,s
evidence.
5) 9es. T!e SC reverse t!e -+RC and t!e CA,s $indin t!at t!e petitioners
were terminated $or "#st ca#se and were a$$orded proced#ral d#e process. In
termination cases, t!e %#rden o$ provin "#st and valid ca#se $or dismissin
an employee $rom !is employment rests #pon t!e employer. T!e employer,s
$ail#re to disc!are t!is %#rden res#lts in t!e $indin t!at t!e dismissal is
#n"#sti$ied.
6) As to salary di$$erential, service incentive, !oliday and 15
t!
mont! pay, t!e
SC reversed t!e -+RC and t!e CA,s $indin t!at t!e petitioners are not
entitled to salary di$$erential, service incentive, !oliday, and t!irteent! mont!
pays. As in illeal dismissal cases, t!e eneral r#le is t!at t!e %#rden rests
on t!e de$endant to prove payment rat!er t!an on t!e plainti$$ to prove non-
payment o$ t!ese money claims. T!e rationale $or t!is r#le is t!at t!e
pertinent personnel $iles, payrolls, records, remittances and ot!er similar
doc#ments C w!ic! will s!ow t!at di$$erentials, service incentive leave and
ot!er claims o$ wor*ers !ave %een paid C are not in t!e possession o$ t!e
wor*er %#t are in t!e c#stody and control o$ t!e employer.
As to overtime and premi#m pays, t!e CA was correct in its $indin t!at t!e
petitioners $ailed to provide s#$$icient $act#al %asis $or t!e award o$ overtime,
and premi#m pays $or !olidays and rest days. T!e %#rden o$ provin
entitlement to overtime pay and premi#m pay $or !olidays and rest days
rests on t!e employee %eca#se t!ese are not inc#rred in t!e normal co#rse
o$ %#siness. In t!e present case, t!e petitioners $ailed to add#ce any
evidence t!at wo#ld s!ow t!at t!ey act#ally rendered service in eBcess o$
t!e re#lar ei!t wor*in !o#rs a day, and t!at t!ey in $act wor*ed on
!olidays and rest days.
7) T!e award o$ attorney,s $ees is also warranted #nder t!e circ#mstances o$
t!is case. An employee is entitled to an award o$ attorney,s $ees e&#ivalent
to ten percent (1@D) o$ t!e amo#nt o$ t!e waes in actions $or #nlaw$#l
wit!!oldin o$ waes.
As a $inal note, t!e SC o%serve t!at Rodelito Ayala, 2inelito E"el, Renato
Rodreo and 2elito +oon are also named as petitioners in t!is case.
'owever, t!e SC denied t!eir petition $or t!e reason t!at t!ey were not part
o$ t!e proceedins %e$ore t!e CA. T!eir $ail#re to timely see* redress %e$ore
t!e CA precl#des t!is Co#rt $rom awardin t!em monetary claims.
T!e SC $ind t!at t!e -+RC committed rave a%#se o$ discretion in admittin
and ivin pro%ative val#e to t!e respondents: evidence on appeal, w!ic!
errors t!e CA replicated w!en it #p!eld t!e -+RC r#lins.
Case # 47 McBurnie vs. Ganon
FACTS:
McF#rnie, an A#stralian national, instit#ted a complaint $or illeal dismissal
and ot!er monetary claims aainst t!e respondents. McF#rnie claimed t!at,
!e sined a $ive-year employment areement wit! t!e company 0GI as an
0Bec#tive Gice-President w!o s!all oversee t!e manaement o$ t!e
company,s !otels and resorts wit!in t!e P!ilippines. 'e per$ormed wor* $or
t!e company #ntil !e $i#red in an accident t!at compelled !im to o %ac* to
A#stralia w!ile rec#peratin $rom !is in"#ries. 2!ile in A#stralia, !e was
in$ormed %y respondent Gan.on t!at !is services were no loner needed
%eca#se t!eir intended pro"ect wo#ld no loner p#s! t!ro#!.
T!e respondents opposed t!e complaint, contendin t!at t!eir areement
wit! McF#rnie was to "ointly invest in and esta%lis! a company $or t!e
manaement o$ !otels. T!ey did not intend to create an employer-employee
relations!ip, and t!e eBec#tion o$ t!e employment contract t!at was %ein
invo*ed %y McF#rnie was solely $or t!e p#rpose o$ allowin McF#rnie to
o%tain an alien wor* permit in t!e P!ilippines. At t!e time McF#rnie le$t $or
A#stralia $or !is medical treatment, !e !ad not yet o%tained a wor* permit.
T!e +A declared McF#rnie as !avin %een illeally dismissed $rom
employment, and t!#s entitled to receive $rom t!e respondents salary and
%ene$its $or t!e #neBpired term o$ t!eir employment contract, moral and
eBemplary damaes, and attorney,s $ees e&#ivalent to 1@D o$ t!e total
monetary award.
T!e respondents appealed t!e +A,s 8ecision to t!e -+RC. T!e -+RC
denied t!e motion to red#ce %ond, eBplainin t!at ;in cases involvin
monetary award, an employer see*in to appeal t!e <+A,s= decision to t!e
Commission is #nconditionally re&#ired %y Art. 445, +a%or Code to post %ond
in t!e amo#nt e&#ivalent to t!e monetary award B B B.; T!#s, t!e -+RC
re&#ired $rom t!e respondents t!e postin o$ an additional %ond in t!e
amo#nt o$ P76,@?5,H1@.@@.
2!en t!eir motion $or reconsideration was denied, t!e respondents decided
to elevate t!e matter to t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals (CA)
T!e CA iss#ed a Resol#tion rantin t!e respondents, application $or a writ
o$ preliminary, in"#nction. It directed t!e -+RC, McF#rnie, and all persons
actin $or and #nder t!eir a#t!ority to re$rain $rom ca#sin t!e eBec#tion and
en$orcement o$ t!e +A,s decision in $avor o$ McF#rnie, conditioned #pon t!e
respondents, postin o$ a %ond in t!e amo#nt o$ P1@,@@@,@@@.@@. McF#rnie
so#!t reconsideration o$ t!e iss#ance o$ t!e writ o$ preliminary in"#nction,
%#t t!is was denied %y t!e CA
T!e Co#rt denied t!e petition on t!e ro#nd o$ McF#rnie,s $ail#re to comply
wit! t!e 4@@6 R#les on -otarial Practice and to s#$$iciently s!ow t!at t!e CA
committed any reversi%le error. A motion $or reconsideration was denied wit!
$inality.
McF#rnie $iled a Motion $or +eave (1) To File S#pplemental Motion $or
Reconsideration and (4) To Admit t!e Attac!ed S#pplemental Motion $or
Reconsideration, w!ic! was treated %y t!e Co#rt as a second motion $or
reconsideration, a pro!i%ited pleadin #nder Section 4, R#le 7A o$ t!e R#les
o$ Co#rt. T!#s, t!e motion $or leave was denied %y t!e Co#rt. T!e Co#rt,s
Resol#tion t!en %ecame $inal and eBec#tor.
In t!e meantime, t!e CA r#led allowin t!e respondents, motion to red#ce
appeal %ond and directin t!e -+RC to ive d#e co#rse to t!eir appeal.
Case # 4! Pioneer "e#ture vs. $L%C
&'C"()
- Private respondent +o#rdes A. de >es#s is petitioners:
reviserItrimmer since 1H?@. As reviserItrimmer, de >es#s %ased !er
assined wor* on a paper note posted %y petitioners. T!e posted
paper w!ic! contains t!e correspondin price $or t!e wor* to %e
accomplis!ed %y a wor*er is identi$ied %y its P.E. -#m%er. 8e
>es#s wor*ed on P.E. -o. 5?75 %y trimmin t!e clot!s: ri%s. S!e
t!erea$ter s#%mitted tic*ets correspondin to t!e wor* done to !er
s#pervisor. T!ree days later, de >es#s received $rom petitioners:
personnel manaer a memorand#m re&#irin !er to eBplain w!y no
disciplinary action s!o#ld %e ta*en aainst !er $or dis!onesty and
tamperin o$ o$$icial records and doc#ments wit! t!e intention o$
c!eatin as P.E. -o. 5?75 alleedly re&#ired no trimmin. T!e
memorand#m also placed !er #nder preventive s#spension $or
t!irty days startin $rom A##st 1H, 1HH4. In !er !andwritten
eBplanation, de >es#s maintained t!at s!e merely committed a
mista*e in trimmin P.E. -o. 5?75 as it !as t!e same style and
desin as P.E. -o. 5?46 w!ic! !as an attac!ed price list $or
trimmin t!e ri%s and admitted t!at s!e may !ave %een nelient in
pres#min t!at t!e same wor* was to %e done wit! P.E. -o. 5?75,
%#t not $or dis!onesty or tamperin. Petitioners: personnel
department, nonet!eless, terminated !er $rom employment and
sent !er a notice o$ termination dated Septem%er 1?, 1HH4.
- 8e >es#s $iled a complaint $or illeal dismissal aainst petitioners.
T!e +a%or Ar%iter w!o !eard t!e case noted t!at de >es#s was
amply accorded proced#ral d#e process in !er termination $rom
service. -evert!eless, a$ter o%servin t!at de >es#s made some
$#rt!er trimmin on P.E. -o. 5?75 and t!at !er dismissal was not
"#sti$ied, t!e +a%or Ar%iter !eld petitioners #ilty o$ illeal dismissal.
Petitioners were accordinly ordered to reinstate de >es#s to !er
previo#s position wit!o#t loss o$ seniority ri!ts and wit! $#ll
%ac*waes $rom t!e time o$ !er s#spension on A##st 1H, 1HH4.
- T!e -+RC r#led t!at de >es#s was nelient in pres#min t!at t!e
ri%s o$ P.E. -o. 5?75 s!o#ld li*ewise %e trimmed $or !avin t!e
same style and desin as P.E. -o. 5?46, t!#s petitioners cannot %e
entirely $a#lted $or dismissin de >es#s. T!e -+RC declared t!at
t!e stat#s &#o %etween t!em s!o#ld %e maintained and a$$irmed
t!e +a%or Ar%iter:s order o$ reinstatement, %#t wit!o#t %ac*waes.
T!e -+RC $#rt!er ;directed petitioner to pay de >es#s !er %ac*
salaries $rom t!e date s!e $iled !er motion $or eBec#tion on
Septem%er 41, 1HH5 #p to t!e date o$ t!e prom#lation o$ <t!e=
decision.;

Petitioners $iled t!eir partial motion $or reconsideration
w!ic! t!e -+RC denied, !ence t!is petition anc!ored s#%stantially
on t!e alleed -+RC:s error in !oldin t!at de >es#s is entitled to
reinstatement and %ac* salaries. Petitioners $iled its s#pplement to
t!e petition ampli$yin $#rt!er t!eir ar#ments. In a resol#tion dated
Fe%r#ary 4@, 1HH7, t!e Co#rt re&#ired respondents to comment
t!ereon. Private respondent de >es#s and t!e E$$ice o$ t!e Solicitor
General, in %e!al$ o$ p#%lic respondent -+RC, s#%se&#ently $iled
t!eir comments. T!erea$ter, petitioners $iled two re"oinders to
respondents: respective comments. Respondents in d#e time $iled
t!eir re"oinders.
ISS/0S:
1) 2!et!er or not de >es#s was illeally dismissed, and
4) 2!et!er or not an order $or reinstatement needs a writ o$
eBec#tion.
'0+8:
1) 9es. T!e SC $o#nd t!e imposition o$ t!e eBtreme penalty o$
dismissal aainst de >es#s as certainly !ars! and rossly
disproportionate to t!e nelience committed, especially w!ere
said employee !olds a $ait!$#l and an #ntarnis!ed twelve-year
service record. 2!ile an employer !as t!e in!erent ri!t to
discipline its employees, we !ave always !eld t!at t!is ri!t m#st
always %e eBercised !#manely, and t!e penalty it m#st impose
s!o#ld %e commens#rate to t!e o$$ense involved and to t!e deree
o$ its in$raction.

T!e employer s!o#ld %ear in mind t!at, in t!e
eBercise o$ s#c! ri!t, w!at is at sta*e is not only t!e employee:s
position %#t !er liveli!ood as well.
0&#ally #nmeritorio#s is petitioners: assertion t!at t!e dismissal is
"#sti$ied on t!e %asis o$ loss o$ con$idence. 2!ile loss o$
con$idence, as correctly ar#ed %y petitioners, is one o$ t!e valid
ro#nds $or termination o$ employment, t!e same, !owever, cannot
%e #sed as a preteBt to vindicate eac! and every instance o$
#nwarranted dismissal. To %e a valid ro#nd, it m#st %e s!own t!at
t!e employee concerned is responsi%le $or t!e miscond#ct or
in$raction and t!at t!e nat#re o$ !is participation t!erein rendered
!im a%sol#tely #nwort!y o$ t!e tr#st and con$idence demanded %y
!is position.

In t!is case, petitioners were #ns#ccess$#l in
esta%lis!in t!eir acc#sations o$ dis!onesty and tamperin o$
records wit! intention o$ c!eatin. Indeed, even i$ petitioners:
alleations aainst de >es#s were tr#e, t!ey "#st t!e same $ailed to
prove t!at !er position needs t!e contin#ed and #nceasin tr#st o$
!er employers. T!e %reac! o$ tr#st m#st %e related to t!e
per$ormance o$ t!e employee:s
$#nctions.

S#rely, de >es#s w!o occ#pies t!e position o$ a
reviserItrimmer does not re&#ire t!e petitioners: perpet#al and $#ll
con$idence. /ndo#%tedly, t!e position o$ a reviserItrimmer co#ld not
%e e&#ated wit! t!at o$ a canvasser, sales aent, or a %ill collector.
Fesides, t!e involved employees in t!e t!ree a$orementioned cases
were clearly proven #ilty o$ in$ractions #nli*e private respondent in
t!e case at %ar.
4) Article 446 states t!at t!e need $or a writ o$ eBec#tion applies
only within five (5) years from the date a decision, an order or
award becomes final and executory. It can not relate to an award or
order o$ reinstatement still to %e appealed or pendin appeal w!ic!
Article 445 contemplates. T!e provision o$ Article 445 is clear t!at
an award $or reinstatement shall be immediately executory even
pendin appeal and the postin of a bond by the employer shall not
stay the execution for reinstatement. T!e leislative intent is &#ite
o%vio#s, i.e., to ma*e an award o$ reinstatement immediately
en$orcea%le, even pendin appeal. To re&#ire t!e application $or
and iss#ance o$ a writ o$ eBec#tion as prere&#isites $or t!e
eBec#tion o$ a reinstatement award wo#ld certainly %etray and r#n
co#nter to t!e very o%"ect and intent o$ Article 445, i.e., t!e
immediate eBec#tion o$ a reinstatement order. T!e reason is
simple. An application $or a writ o$ eBec#tion and its iss#ance co#ld
%e delayed $or n#mero#s reasons. A mere contin#ance or
postponement o$ a sc!ed#led !earin, $or instance, or an inaction
on t!e part o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter or t!e -+RC co#ld easily delay t!e
iss#ance o$ t!e writ t!ere%y settin at na#!t t!e strict mandate
and no%le p#rpose envisioned %y Article 445.
The rule is that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation
of labor laws should be resolved in favor of labor.

In r#lin t!at an
order or award $or reinstatement does not re&#ire a writ o$
eBec#tion t!e Co#rt is simply ad!erin and ivin meanin to t!is
r#le. 'ence$ort!, we r#le t!at an award or order $or reinstatement is
sel$-eBec#tory. A$ter receipt o$ t!e decision or resol#tion orderin
t!e employee:s reinstatement, t!e employer !as t!e ri!t to c!oose
w!et!er to re-admit t!e employee to wor* #nder t!e same terms
and conditions prevailin prior to !is dismissal or to reinstate t!e
employee in t!e payroll. In eit!er instance, t!e employer !as to
in$orm t!e employee o$ !is c!oice. T!e noti$ication is %ased on
practical considerations $or wit!o#t notice, t!e employee !as no
way o$ *nowin i$ !e !as to report $or wor* or not.
Case # 4* %o+uero vs P'L
&'C"()
Petitioner Ale"andro Ro&#ero was dismissed %y PA+ $or violatin t!e PA+
Code o$ 8iscipline reardin t!e #se o$ pro!i%ited dr#s w!ile on company
premises or on d#ty. 'e alleed t!at !e was merely instiated %y PA+ to ta*e
t!e dr#s t!ro#! a certain >osep! Ec#l. T!e +a%or Ar%iter #p!eld t!e
dismissal %#t also $o#nd PA+ #ilty o$ enticin t!e complainants into
committin t!e in$raction. Pendin appeal at t!e -+RC, Ro&#ero and
anot!er employee was ac&#itted %y t!e RTC in t!e criminal case w!ic!
c!ared t!em wit! Jconspiracy $or possession and #se o$ re#lated dr#K on
t!e ro#nd o$ instiation.
T!e -+RC r#led in $avor o$ Ro&#ero as it li*ewise $o#nd PA+ #ilty o$
instiation and ordered reinstatement %#t wit!o#t %ac*waes. PA+ re$#sed to
eBec#te t!e writ o$ eBec#tion iss#ed %y t!e +a%or Ar%iter on t!e ro#nd t!at
t!ey !ave $iled a petition $or review %e$ore t!e SC, w!ic! was s#%se&#ently
re$erred to t!e CA. T!e CA reversed t!e decision o$ t!e -+RC and
reinstated t!e decision o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter inso$ar as it #p!eld t!e dismissal
o$ Ro&#ero %#t denied t!e award o$ separation pay and attorney,s $ees.
,((-.(
1) 2!et!er or not t!e instiated employee s!all %e solely responsi%le $or an
action arisin $rom t!e instiation perpetrated %y t!e employer
4) 2E- t!e reinstatement order can %e !alted wit!o#t a restrainin order or
preliminary in"#nction
5) 2E- t!e employer w!o re$#sed to reinstate t!e employee despite a writ
d#ly iss#ed %e !eld to pay t!e salary o$ t!e s#%"ect employee $rom t!e time
!e was ordered reinstated #p to t!e time o$ t!e reversal o$ t!e decision
/.L0
1. Petioner is #ilty o$ serio#s miscond#ct. It is o$ p#%lic *nowlede t!at
dr#s damae t!e mental $ac#lties o$ t!e #ser. 'e is tas*ed wit! t!e repair
and maintenance o$ PA+,s airplanes. 'e cannot disc!are t!at d#ty i$ !e is a
dr# #ser. It can mean reat loss o$ lives and property. Instiation is only a
de$ense aainst criminal lia%ility %#t not aainst dismissal $rom employment
especially w!en t!e position involves t!e sa$ety o$ !#man lives.
4. T!e order o$ reinstatement is immediately eBec#tor. T!e #n"#sti$ied re$#sal
o$ t!e employer to reinstate a dismissed employee entitles !im to payment o$
!is salaries e$$ective $rom t!e time t!e employer $ailed to reinstate !im
despite t!e iss#ance o$ a writ o$ eBec#tion.
5. It is o%liatory on t!e part o$ t!e employer to reinstate and pay t!e waes
o$ t!e dismissed employee d#rin t!e period o$ appeal #ntil reversal %y t!e
!i!er co#rt.
Case # 12 'ir3hil Cor3 vs. 4amora
FACTS:
0nrico Lamora (Lamora) was employed wit! Air P!ilippines
Corporation (APC) as a F-M5M Fli!t 8ec* Crew. 'e applied $or promotion to
t!e position o$ airplane captain and #nderwent t!e re&#isite trainin
proram. A$ter completin trainin, !e in&#ired a%o#t !is promotion %#t APC
did not act on it3 instead, it contin#ed to ive !im assinments as $li!t dec*
crew. T!#s, Lamora $iled a Complaint wit! t!e +a%or Ar%iter. 'e ar#ed
t!at t!e act o$ APC o$ wit!!oldin !is promotion rendered !is contin#ed
employment wit! it oppressive and #n"#st. 'e t!ere$ore as*ed t!at APC %e
!eld lia%le $or constr#ctive dismissal.
APC denied t!at it dismissed complainant. It pointed o#t t!at, w!en
t!e complaint, complainant was still employed wit! it. T!e complainant
stopped reportin $or wor*, not %eca#se !e was $orced to resin, %#t
%eca#se !e !ad "oined a rival airline, Grand Air.
T!e +a%or Ar%iter r#led in $avor o$ Lamora and declared APC lia%le
$or constr#ctive dismissal. Lamora immediately $iled a Motion $or 0Bec#tion
o$ t!e order o$ reinstatement. T!e +a%or Ar%iter ranted t!e motion and
iss#ed a writ o$ eBec#tion directin APC to reinstate complainant to !is
$ormer position.

Meanw!ile, APC $iled wit! t!e -+RC an appeal assailin t!e $indin o$
t!e +a%or Ar%iter t!at it was lia%le $or constr#ctive dismissal.

T!e -+RC ranted t!e appeal and t!at !eld t!at no dismissal,
constr#ctive or ot!erwise, too* place $or it was Lamora !imsel$ w!o
vol#ntarilly terminated !is employment %y not reportin $or wor* and %y
"oinin a competitor Grand Air. 'owever, #pon Motion $or
Reconsideration $iled %y Lamora, t!e -+RC, in a Resol#tion dated
8ecem%er 1M, 1HHH, modi$ied its earlier Resol#tion.


8ispleased wit! t!e modi$ication, APC so#!t a partial reconsideration
o$ t!e $oreoin resol#tion %#t t!e -+RC denied t!e same. In its Resol#tion
o$ Ecto%er 11, 4@@@, t!e -+RC "#sti$ed t!e award o$ #npaid salaries.

T!e Co#rt o$ Appeals dismissed t!e petition $or $ail#re o$ petitioner to
attac! copies o$ all pleadins (s#c! complaint, answer, position
paper) and ot!er material portions o$ t!e record as wo#ld s#pport t!e
alleations t!erein.

Petitioner $iled a Motion $or Reconsideration $rom t!e said
Resol#tion and attac!ed to it t!e pleadins and portions o$ t!e case record
re&#ired %y t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals.

Lamora (!erea$ter re$erred to as
respondent) $iled an Epposition to Motion $or Reconsideration. T!e Co#rt o$
Appeals denied t!e motion $or reconsideration.

ISS/0S:
1) 2!et!er or not t!e CA did not r#le in accordance wit!
prevailin laws and "#rispr#dence w!en it dismissed t!e
petition $or certiorari $iled %y petitioner APC on t!e ro#nd
t!at petitioner APC s#pposedly $ailed to attac! copies o$
all pleadins (s#c! as complaint, answer, position papers)
and ot!er materials portions o$ t!e record as wo#ld
s#pport t!e alleations t!erein.

4) 2!et!er or not t!e CA did not r#le in accordance wit!
prevailin laws and "#rispr#dence w!en it denied petitioner
APC,s motion $or reconsideration in spite o$ t!e $act t!at
petitioner APC s#%mitted copies o$ all pleadins and
doc#ments mentioned in its petition $or certiorari.

5) 2!et!er or not t!e CA did not r#le in accordance wit!
prevailin laws and "#rispr#dence w!en it denied petitioner
APC,s motion $or reconsideration on a new ro#nd
namely, t!e alleed $ail#re o$ petitioner APC to disp#te
respondent Lamora,s comment andIor opposition to
motion $or reconsideration (JEppositionK), in spite o$ t!e
$act t!at (i) t!e 'onora%le Co#rt o$ Appeals did not order
petitioner APC to reply to t!e said opposition3 and (ii) t!e
said Epposition is patently #nmeritorio#s
'0+8:
As to t!e First and t!e Second Iss#es, t!e SC areed wit! t!e
petitioner t!at t!e CA did not r#le in accordance wit! t!e prevailin
laws and "#rispr#dence w!en it dismissed t!e petitioner $or
certiorari and denied t!e petitioner,s motion $or reconsideration.
!ertiorari, %ein an eBtraordinary remedy, t!e party see*in it m#st
strictly o%serve t!e re&#irements $or its iss#ance.

Some o$ t!ese
re&#irements are $o#nd in pararap! 4, Section 1 o$ R#le A7, w!ic! reads:

S0CTIE-. 1. Petition for certiorari.C

T!e petition s!all %e accompanied %y a certi$ied
tr#e copy o$ t!e "#dment, order or resol#tion s#%"ect
t!ereo$, copies o$ all pleadins and doc#ments relevant
and pertinent t!ereto B B B.


T!ese re&#irements are emp!asi.ed in Section 5, R#le 6A, t!#s:


S0C. 5. !ontents and filin of petition" effect of non#
compliance with re$uirements. C


<T!e petition= s!all %e B B B accompanied %y a clearly
lei%le d#plicate oriinal or certi$ied tr#e copy o$ t!e
"#dment, order, resol#tion, or r#lin s#%"ect t!ereo$, s#c!
material portions o$ t!e record as are re$erred to t!erein,
and ot!er doc#ments relevant or pertinent t!ereto B B B.

T!e $ail#re o$ t!e petitioner to comply wit! any o$ t!e
$oreoin re&#irements s!all %e s#$$icient ro#nd $or t!e
dismissal o$ t!e petition.


-ote t!at t!e $oreoin r#les spea* o$ two sets o$ doc#ments to %e
attac!ed to t!e petition. T!e $irst set consists o$ certi$ied tr#e copies o$ t!e
"#dment, order or resol#tion subject of the petition. 8#plicate oriinals or
certi$ied tr#e copies t!ereo$ m#st %e appended to ena%le t!e reviewin co#rt
to determine w!et!er t!e co#rt, %ody or tri%#nal, w!ic! rendered t!e same
committed rave a%#se o$ discretion. T!e second set consists o$ t!e
pleadins, portions o$ t!e case record and ot!er doc#ments which are
material and pertinent to the petition. Mere p!otocopies t!ereo$ may %e
attac!ed to t!e petition.

It is t!is second set o$ doc#ments w!ic! is relevant
to t!is case.

As a eneral r#le, a petition lac*in copies o$ essential pleadins and
portions o$ t!e case record may %e dismissed. T!is r#le, !owever, is not
petri$ied. As t!e eBact nat#re o$ t!e pleadins and parts o$ t!e case record
w!ic! m#st accompany a petition is not speci$ied, m#c! discretion is le$t to
t!e appellate co#rt to determine t!e necessity $or copies o$ pleadin and
ot!er doc#ments. T!ere are, !owever, #ideposts it m#st $ollow.

First, not all pleadins and parts o$ case records are re&#ired to %e
attac!ed to t!e petition. Enly t!ose w!ic! are relevant and pertinent m#st
accompany it. T!e test o$ relevancy is w!et!er t!e doc#ment in &#estion will
s#pport t!e material alleations in t!e petition, w!et!er said doc#ment
will ma*e o#t a prima facie case o$ rave a%#se o$ discretion as to convince
t!e co#rt to ive d#e co#rse to t!e petition
.


Second, even i$ a doc#ment is relevant and pertinent to t!e petition,
it need not %e appended i$ it is s!own t!at t!e contents t!ereo$ can also
$o#nd in anot!er doc#ment already attac!ed to t!e petition. T!#s, i$ t!e
material alleations in a position paper are s#mmari.ed in a &#estioned
"#dment, it will s#$$ice t!at only a certi$ied tr#e copy o$ t!e "#dment is
attac!ed.

T!ird, a petition lac*in an essential pleadin or part o$ t!e case
record may still %e iven d#e co#rse or reinstated (i$ earlier dismissed) #pon
s!owin t!at petitioner later s#%mitted t!e doc#ments re&#ired, or t!at it will
serve t!e !i!er interest o$ "#stice t!at t!e case %e decided on t!e merits.

It is readily apparent in t!is case t!at t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals was
over.ealo#s in its en$orcement o$ t!e r#les.

To %ein wit!, t!e pleadins and ot!er doc#ments it re&#ired o$
petitioner were not at all relevant to t!e petition. It is noted t!at t!e only iss#e
raised %y petitioner was w!et!er t!e -+RC committed rave a%#se o$
discretion in rantin respondent #npaid salaries w!ile declarin !im #ilty
o$ a%andonment o$ employment. Certainly, copies o$ t!e Resol#tions o$ t!e
-+RC dated Fe%r#ary 1@, 1HHH, 8ecem%er 1M, 1HHH and Ecto%er 11,
4@@@ wo#ld !ave s#$$iced as %asis $or t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals to resolve t!is
iss#e. A$ter all, it is in t!ese Resol#tions t!at t!e -+RC p#rportedly made
contrary $indins.

T!ere was no need at all $or copies o$ t!e position papers and ot!er
pleadins o$ t!e parties3 t!ese wo#ld !ave only cl#ttered t!e doc*et.
Fesides, a s#mmary o$ t!e material alleations in t!e position papers can %e
$o#nd in %ot! t!e Septem%er 1A, 1HH? 8ecision o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter and t!e
Fe%r#ary 1@, 1HHH Resol#tion o$ t!e -+CR. N#ic* re$erence to copies o$ t!e
decision and resol#tion wo#ld !ave already satis$ied any &#estion t!e co#rt
may !ave !ad reardin t!e pleadins o$ t!e parties.
T!e attac!ments o$ petitioner to its petition $or certiorari were
already s#$$icient even wit!o#t t!e pleadins and portions o$ t!e case record.
It was t!ere$ore #nreasona%le o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals to !ave dismissed it.
More so t!at petitioner later corrected t!e p#rported de$iciency %y s#%mittin
copies o$ t!e pleadins and ot!er doc#ments.
As to t!e t!ird iss#e, areed wit! t!e petitioner t!at t!e CA erred in t!e
denyin t!e petitioner,s motion $or reconsideration $or $ail#re o$ t!e petitioner
to disp#te.
In its May 45, 4@@1 Resol#tion, t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals cited as %asis
$or denyin t!e motion $or reconsideration o$ petitioner $rom t!e >an#ary 11,
4@@@ Resol#tion t!e latter,s p#rported $ail#re to contravene t!e Epposition
$iled %y respondent.
<56=
T!is is certainly a c#rio#s ro#nd to deny a motion $or
reconsideration. As pointed o#t %y petitioner, a reply to an opposition to a
motion $or reconsideration is not $iled as a matter o$ co#rse. An order $rom
t!e co#rt may iss#e t!o#! to direct t!e movant to $ile a reply. In t!is case,
no s#c! order came $rom t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals instr#ctin petitioner to
co#nter t!e Epposition $iled %y respondent. 'ence, it cannot %e ass#med
t!at in $ailin to $ile a reply, petitioner, in e$$ect, conceded to t!e Epposition o$
respondent.

It is not as i$ t!e Epposition w!ic! respondent $iled re&#ired any
answer. T!e matters disc#ssed t!erein were not even ermane to t!e iss#e
raised in t!e motion $or reconsideration. It was as t!o#! respondent
passed in silence petitioner,s ar#ments aainst t!e >an#ary 11,
4@@@ Resol#tion. I$ we are to %e tec!nical a%o#t it, it was instead t!e motion
$or reconsideration o$ petitioner w!ic! was not contravened %y respondent. It
was error on t!e part o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals to !ave denied it.

In s#m, we ann#l and set aside t!e >an#ary 11, 4@@@ and May 45,
4@@1 Resol#tions o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals. T!ere is no more o%stacle t!en to
t!e petition $or certiorarita*in its co#rse. 'owever, rat!er t!an remand it to
t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals $or resol#tion, we resolve it !ere and now to eBpedite
matters.
T!e SC !eld t!at t!e -+RC did not commit rave a%#se o$
discretion in !oldin petitioner lia%le to respondent $or P1H?,7@4.5@.
T!e premise o$ t!e award o$ #npaid salary to respondent is t!at
prior to t!e reversal %y t!e -+RC o$ t!e decision o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter, t!e
order o$ reinstatement em%odied t!erein was already t!e s#%"ect o$ an alias
writ o$ eBec#tion even pendin appeal. Alt!o#! petitioner did not comply
wit! t!is writ o$ eBec#tion, its intransience made it lia%le nonet!eless to t!e
salaries o$ respondent pendin appeal. T!ere is loic in t!is reasonin o$
t!e -+RC. In %o$uero v. Philippine &irlines, 'nc(, we resolved t!e same
iss#e as $ollows: 2e reiterate t!e r#le t!at tec!nicalities !ave no room in
la%or cases w!ere t!e R#les o$ Co#rt are applied only in a s#ppletory
manner and only to e$$ect#ate t!e o%"ectives o$ t!e +a%or Code and not to
de$eat t!em. /ence, even if the order of reinstatement of the La5or
'r5iter is reversed on a33eal, it is o5li6atory on the 3art of the
em3loyer to reinstate and 3ay the wa6es of the dismissed em3loyee
durin6 the 3eriod of a33eal until reversal 5y the hi6her court. En t!e
ot!er !and, i$ t!e employee !as %een reinstated d#rin t!e appeal period
and s#c! reinstatement order is reversed wit! $inality, t!e employee is not
re&#ired to reim%#rse w!atever salary !e received $or !e is entitled to s#c!,
more so i$ !e act#ally rendered services d#rin t!e period.
T!ere is a policy elevated in t!is r#lin. In &ris (Phil() 'nc( v(
)ational Labor %elations !ommission, we !eld:
In s!ort, wit! respect to decisions reinstatin
employees, t!e law itsel$ !as determined a s#$$iciently
overw!elmin reason $or its eBec#tion pendin appeal.
B B B T!en, %y and p#rs#ant to t!e same power (police
power), t!e State may a#t!ori.e an immediate
implementation, pendin appeal, o$ a decision reinstatin
a dismissed or separated employee since t!at savin act
is desined to stop, alt!o#! temporarily since t!e appeal
may %e decided in $avor o$ t!e appellant, a contin#in
t!reat or daner to t!e s#rvival or even t!e li$e o$ t!e
dismissed or separated employee and !is $amily.


Case # 17 Lansan6an vs. 'm8or
Facts:
An anonymo#s e-mail was sent to t!e General Manaer o$ Am*or
Tec!noloy P!ilippines detailin alleations o$ mal$easance on t!e part o$ its
s#pervisory employees +#nesa +ansanan and Rosita CendaOa (petitioners)
$or ;stealin company time.; Respondent t!#s investiated t!e matter,
re&#irin petitioners to s#%mit t!eir written eBplanation. In !andwritten
letters, petitioners admitted t!eir wrondoin. Respondent t!ere#pon
terminated petitioners $or ;eBtremely serio#s o$$enses; as de$ined in its Code
o$ 8iscipline,

promptin petitioners to $ile a complaint $or illeal dismissal
aainst it.
T!e la%or ar%iter Art!#r +. Amansec

dismissed petitioners, complaint, !e
!avin $o#nd t!em #ilty o$ swipin anot!er employees, <sic= I.8. card or
re&#estin anot!er employee to swipe one,s I.8. card to ain personal
advantae andIor in t!e interest o$ c!eatin;, an o$$ense o$ dis!onesty
p#nis!a%le as a serio#s $orm o$ miscond#ct and $ra#d or %reac! o$ tr#st
#nder Article 4?4 o$ t!e +a%or Code: w!ic! allows t!e dismissal o$ an
employee $or a valid ca#se.
T!e Ar%iter, !owever, ordered t!e reinstatement o$ petitioners to t!eir $ormer
positions wit!o#t %ac*waes ;as a meas#re o$ e&#ita%le and compassionate
relie$; owin mainly to petitioners, prior #n%lemis!ed employment records,
s!ow o$ remorse, !ars!ness o$ t!e penalty and de$ective attendance
monitorin system o$ respondent.
Respondent assailed t!e reinstatement aspect o$ t!e Ar%iter,s order %e$ore
t!e -+RC.
In t!e meantime, petitioners, wit!o#t appealin t!e Ar%iter,s $indin t!em
#ilty o$ ;dis!onesty as a $orm o$ serio#s miscond#ct and $ra#d or %reac! o$
tr#st,; moved $or t!e iss#ance o$ a ;writ o$ reinstatement.;
A$ter consolidatin respondent,s appeal $rom t!e +a%or Ar%iter,s order o$
reinstatement and s#%se&#ent appealIorder denyin t!e &#as!al o$ t!e alias
writ o$ eBec#tion and li$tin o$ t!e notice o$ arnis!ment, t!e -+RC ranted
respondent,s appeals %y deletin t!e reinstatement aspect o$ t!e Ar%iter,s
decision and settin aside t!e Ar%iter,s Alias 2rit o$ 0Bec#tion and -otice o$
Garnis!ment.
Petitioners, motion $or reconsideration o$ t!e -+RC Resol#tion !avin %een
denied, t!ey $iled a petition $or certiorari %e$ore t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals w!ic!
w!ile a$$irmin t!e $indin t!at petitioners were #ilty o$ miscond#ct and t!e
li*e, ordered respondent to ;pay petitioners t!eir correspondin
%ac*waes wit!o#t &#ali$ication and ded#ction $or t!e period coverin
Ecto%er 4@, 4@@6 (date o$ t!e Ar%iter,s decision) #p to >#ne 5@, 4@@7 (date
o$ t!e -+RC 8ecision),; citin Article 445 o$ t!e +a%or Code and Ro&#ero v.
P!ilippine Airlines.
Iss#e: 2!et!er or not Art. 445 is applica%le in t!e present case
'eld: It is not applica%le. T!e decision o$ t!e Ar%iter $indin t!at petitioners
committed ;dis!onesty as a $orm o$ serio#s miscond#ct and $ra#d, or %reac!
o$ tr#st; !ad %ecome $inal, petitioners not !avin appealed t!e same %e$ore
t!e -+RC as in $act t!ey even moved $or t!e eBec#tion o$ t!e reinstatement
aspect o$ t!e decision. It %ears recallin t!at it was only respondent w!ic!
assailed t!e Ar%iter,s decision to t!e -+RC C to solely &#estion t!e propriety
o$ t!e order $or reinstatement, and it s#cceeded. Article 445 concerns itsel$
wit! an interim relie$, ranted to a dismissed or separated employee w!ile
t!e case $or illeal dismissal is pendin appeal, as w!at !appened in
Ro&#ero. It does not apply w!ere t!ere is no $indin o$ illeal dismissal.
T!#s, petitioners are entitled neit!er to $#ll %ac*waes nor to reinstatement
as t!ey are not #n"#stly dismissed.
Case # 19 Genuino vs. $L%C
&'C"(
Gen#ino was employed %y Citi%an*, an American %an*in corporation d#ly
licensed to do %#siness in t!e P!ilippines, sometime in >an#ary 1HH4 as
Treas#ry Sales 8ivision 'ead wit! t!e ran* o$ Assistant Gice-President.
Gen#ino:s employment was terminated %y Citi%an* on ro#nds o$ (1) serio#s
miscond#ct, (4) will$#l %reac! o$ t!e tr#st reposed #pon !er %y t!e %an*, and
(5) commission o$ a crime aainst t!e %an*.
En Ecto%er 17, 1HH5, Gen#ino $iled %e$ore t!e +a%or Ar%iter a
Complaint aainst Citi%an* $or illeal s#spension and illeal dismissal wit!
damaes and prayer $or temporary restrainin order andIor writ o$
preliminary in"#nction. T!e +a%or Ar%iter rendered a 8ecision orderin !er
reinstatement immediately to !er $ormer position, wit! %ac*waes, moral
and eBemplary damaes pl#s 1@D o$ t!e total monetary award as attorney:s
$ees.
Fot! parties appealed to t!e -+RC. T!e -+RC reversed t!e +a%or Ar%iter:s
decision, declarin t!e dismissal o$ t!e complainant valid and leal on t!e
ro#nd o$ serio#s miscond#ct and %reac! o$ tr#st and con$idence and
conse&#ently dismissin t!e complaint a &#o3 %#t (5) ER80RI-G t!e
respondent %an* to pay t!e salaries d#e to t!e complainant $rom t!e date it
reinstated complainant in t!e payroll (comp#ted at PA@,@@@.@@ a mont!, as
$o#nd %y t!e +a%or Ar%iter) #p to and #ntil t!e date o$ t!is decision.
T!e parties: motions $or reconsideration were denied %y t!e -+RC in a
resol#tion dated Ecto%er 4?, 1HH6.
1?
Gen#ino prayed $or t!e reversal o$ t!e -+RC:s decision inso$ar as it declared
!er dismissal valid and leal. Meanw!ile, Citi%an* &#estioned t!e -+RC:s
order to pay Gen#ino:s salaries $rom t!e date o$ reinstatement #ntil t!e date
o$ t!e -+RC:s decision. T!e Co#rt $o#nd t!at t!e dismissal o$ Gen#ino is $or
a leal and valid ro#nd.
,((-.)
:;$ Citi%an* needs to ;to pay t!e salaries d#e to t!e complainant $rom t!e
date it reinstated complainant in t!e payroll (comp#ted at PA@,@@@.@@ a
mont!, as $o#nd %y t!e +a%or Ar%iter) #p to and #ntil t!e date o$ t!is
decision,;
'0+8
Anent t!e directive o$ t!e -+RC in its Septem%er 5, 1HH6 8ecision orderin
Citi%an* ;to pay t!e salaries d#e to t!e complainant $rom t!e date it
reinstated complainant in t!e payroll (comp#ted at PA@,@@@.@@ a mont!, as
$o#nd %y t!e +a%or Ar%iter) #p to and #ntil t!e date o$ t!is decision,; t!e
Co#rt !ere%y cancels said award in view o$ its $indin t!at t!e dismissal o$
Gen#ino is $or a leal and valid ro#nd.
Erdinarily, t!e employer is re&#ired to reinstate t!e employee d#rin t!e
pendency o$ t!e appeal p#rs#ant to Art. 445, pararap! 5 o$ t!e +a%or Code,
w!ic! states:
In any event, t!e decision o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter reinstatin a
dismissed or separated employee, inso$ar as t!e reinstatement
aspect is concerned, s!all immediately %e eBec#tory, even pendin
appeal. T!e employee s!all eit!er %e admitted %ac* to wor* #nder
t!e same terms and conditions prevailin prior to !is dismissal or
separation or, at t!e option o$ t!e employer, merely reinstated in t!e
payroll. T!e postin o$ a %ond %y t!e employer s!all not stay t!e
eBec#tion $or reinstatement provided !erein.
I$ t!e decision o$ t!e la%or ar%iter is later reversed on appeal #pon t!e
$indin t!at t!e ro#nd $or dismissal is valid, t!en t!e employer !as t!e ri!t
to re&#ire t!e dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to re$#nd t!e
salaries sI!e received w!ile t!e case was pendin appeal, or it can %e
ded#cted $rom t!e accr#ed %ene$its t!at t!e dismissed employee was
entitled to receive $rom !isI!er employer #nder eBistin laws, collective
%arainin areement provisions, and company practices.
64
'owever, i$ t!e
employee was reinstated to wor* d#rin t!e pendency o$ t!e appeal, t!en
t!e employee is entitled to t!e compensation received $or act#al services
rendered wit!o#t need o$ re$#nd.
Considerin t!at Gen#ino was not reinstated to wor* or placed on payroll
reinstatement, and !er dismissal is %ased on a "#st ca#se, t!en s!e is not
entitled to %e paid t!e salaries stated in item no. 5 o$ t!e fallo o$ t!e
Septem%er 5, 1HH6 -+RC 8ecision.
Case # 1< Garcia et al vs. P'L
Facts:
T!e case stemmed $rom t!e administrative c!are $iled %y PA+ aainst its
employees-!erein petitioners a$ter t!ey were alleedly ca#!t in t!e act o$
sni$$in s!a%# w!en a team o$ company sec#rity personnel and law
en$orcers raided t!e PA+ Tec!nical Center,s Tool room Section on >#ly 46,
1HH7.
A$ter d#e notice, PA+ dismissed petitioners on Ecto%er H, 1HH7 $or
transressin t!e PA+ Code o$ 8iscipline, promptin t!em to $ile a complaint
$or illeal dismissal and damaes w!ic! was, %y 8ecision o$ >an#ary 11,
1HHH, resolved %y t!e +a%or Ar%iter in t!eir $avor, t!#s orderin PA+ to, inter
alia, immediately comply wit! t!e reinstatement aspect o$ t!e decision.
From t!e +a%or Ar%iter,s decision, respondent appealed to t!e -+RC w!ic!,
%y Resol#tion o$ >an#ary 51, 4@@@, reversed said decision and dismissed
petitioners, complaint $or lac* o$ merit.
S#%se&#ently or on Ecto%er 7, 4@@@, t!e +a%or Ar%iter iss#ed a 2rit o$
0Bec#tion (2rit) respectin t!e reinstatement aspect o$ !is >an#ary 11, 1HHH
8ecision, and on Ecto%er 47, 4@@@, !e iss#ed a -otice o$ Garnis!ment
(-otice). Respondent t!ere#pon moved to &#as! t!e 2rit and to li$t t!e
-otice w!ile petitioners moved to release t!e arnis!ed amo#nt.
Iss#e:
2!et!er petitioners may collect t!eir waes d#rin t!e period %etween t!e
+a%or Ar%iter,s order o$ reinstatement pendin appeal and t!e -+RC
decision overt#rnin t!at o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter
'eld:
T!ere are 4 views reardin t!is iss#e %ased on eBistin "#rispr#dence.
1
st
Giew (cases s#c! as Air P!ilippines Corp vs. Lamora)
B B B <.=ven if the order of reinstatement of the La5or 'r5iter is reversed
on a33eal, it is o5li6atory on the 3art of the em3loyer to reinstate and
3ay the wa6es of the dismissed em3loyee durin6 the 3eriod of a33eal
until reversal 5y the hi6her court. En t!e ot!er !and, i$ t!e employee !as
%een reinstated d#rin t!e appeal period and s#c! reinstatement order is
reversed wit! $inality, t!e employee is not re&#ired to reim%#rse w!atever
salary !e received $or !e is entitled to s#c!, more so i$ !e act#ally rendered
services d#rin t!e period.
4
nd
Gew (recent case o$ Geni#no vs. -+RC)
I$ t!e decision o$ t!e la%or ar%iter is later reversed on appeal #pon t!e
$indin t!at t!e ro#nd $or dismissal is valid, t!en the em3loyer has the
ri6ht to re+uire the dismissed em3loyee on 3ayroll reinstatement to
refund the salaries s=he received w!ile t!e case was pendin appeal, or it
can %e ded#cted $rom t!e accr#ed %ene$its t!at t!e dismissed employee was
entitled to receive $rom !isI!er employer #nder eBistin laws, collective
%arainin areement provisions, and company practices. 'owever, i$ t!e
employee was reinstated to wor* d#rin t!e pendency o$ t!e appeal, t!en
t!e employee is entitled to t!e compensation received $or act#al services
rendered wit!o#t need o$ re$#nd.
"he social >ustice 3rinci3les of la5or law outwei6h or render
ina33lica5le the civil law doctrine of un>ust enrichment espo#sed %y
>#stice Pres%itero Gelasco, >r. in !is Separate Epinion. T!e constit#tional
and stat#tory precepts portray t!e ot!erwise J#n"#stK sit#ation as a condition
a$$ordin $#ll protection to la%or.
0ven o#tside t!e t!eoretical trappins o$ t!e disc#ssion and into t!e
m#ndane realities o$ !#man eBperience, t!e Jre$#nd doctrineK easily
demonstrates !ow a $avora%le decision %y t!e +a%or Ar%iter co#ld !arm,
more t!an !elp, a dismissed employee. T!e employee, to ma*e %ot! ends
meet, wo#ld necessarily !ave to #se #p t!e salaries received d#rin t!e
pendency o$ t!e appeal, only to end #p !avin to re$#nd t!e s#m in case o$
a $inal #n$avora%le decision. It is mirae o$ a stop-ap leadin t!e employee
to a ris*y cli$$ o$ insolvency.
T!e Co#rt rea$$irms t!e prevailin principle t!at even i$ t!e order o$
reinstatement o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter is reversed on appeal, it is o%liatory on
t!e part o$ t!e employer to reinstate and pay t!e waes o$ t!e dismissed
employee d#rin t!e period o$ appeal #ntil reversal %y t!e !i!er co#rt. It
settles t!e view t!at t!e +a%or Ar%iter:s order o$ reinstatement is immediately
eBec#tory and t!e employer !as to eit!er re-admit t!em to wor* #nder t!e
same terms and conditions prevailin prior to t!eir dismissal, or to reinstate
t!em in t!e payroll, and t!at $ailin to eBercise t!e options in t!e alternative,
employer m#st pay t!e employee,s salaries.
T!e new -+RC R#les o$ Proced#re, w!ic! too* e$$ect on >an#ary M, 4@@A,
now re&#ire t!e employer to s#%mit a report o$ compliance wit!in 1@
calendar days $rom receipt o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter,s decision, diso%edience to
w!ic! clearly denotes a re$#sal to reinstate. T!e employee need not $ile a
motion $or t!e iss#ance o$ t!e writ o$ eBec#tion since t!e +a%or Ar%iter s!all
t!erea$ter mot# proprio iss#e t!e writ
(P+0AS0 -ET0: T!ere was anot!er iss#e reardin PA+,s $inancial
insta%ility w!ic! res#lted in receivers!ip proceedins d#rin t!e pendency o$
t!e said case. T!e minor iss#e was w!et!er PA+ was still re&#ired to comply
wit! t!e order o$ reinstatement despite it %ein in receivers!ip. T!e answer
is no, PA+ need not comply wit! t!e reinstatement d#rin t!e receivers!ip
proceedins since it was in a state o$ re!a%ilitation. S#c! o%liation o$ PA+
was merely in S/SP0-SIE-. 'owever, w!en it $inally eBited $rom
receivers!ip, PA+ !ad t!e o%liation to comply wit! t!e order o$
reinstatement or payment o$ waes $rom t!e time o$ t!e reinstatement order
o$ t!e +A #ntil t!e reversal o$ t!e !i!er co#rt o$ t!e +A,s decision.)
Case # 14 Mt. Carmel Colle6e vs. %e(uena
&'C"()
- Petitioner: private ed#cational instit#tion administered %y t!e Carmelite
Fat!ers at -ew 0scalante, -eros Eccidental
- Respondents were employees o$ petitioner, namely: >ocelyn
Res#ena (Acco#ntin Cler*), 0ddie Gillalon (0lementary 8epartment
Principal)3 Sylvia Sedayon (Treas#rer), and Lonsayda 0mnace (Secretary to
t!e 8irector).
- -ovem%er 1HHM: respondents, toet!er wit! several $ac#lty mem%ers, non-
academic personnel, and ot!er st#dents, participated in a protest action
aainst petitioner. Feca#se o$ t!is, respondents were terminated %y
petitioner on 17 May 1HH?.
- Separate complaints were $iled %e$ore Reional Ar%itration Franc! GI o$ t!e
-+RC in Facolod City, c!arin petitioner wit! illeal dismissal and claimed
15t! mont! pay, separation pay, damaes and attorney:s $ees
- +a%or Ar%iter 8rilon $o#nd t!at t!ey were not illeally dismissed %#t
ordered t!at t!ey %e awarded 15t ! mont ! pay, separati on pay and
att orney, s $ ees i n t!e amo#nt o$ P556,?M7.6M. /pon appeal to
t!e -+RC, t!e -+RC reversed t!e $indins o$ t!e +a%or Ar%i ter r#l i n t!at
t !e t ermi nat i on o$ respondent s was i l l eal and orderi n t!e
payment o$ %ac* waes o$ respondents $rom 17 May 1HH? #p to 47 May
1HHH. It $#rt!er directedt !e rei nst at ement o$ respondent s or payment
o$ separati on pay, wi t ! %ac* waes. T!i s was a$$irmed %y t!e
Co#rt o$ Appeals.
, ((-.)
(1) 2o- rei nst at ement i n t!e i nstant case i s sel $ -eBec#tory
and does not need a wri t o$ eBec#ti on $ or i t s en$ orcement 3
and
(4) 2o- t!e cont i n#i n award o$ %ac*waes is proper.
/.L0)
- A n o r d e r $ o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t m # s t % e s p e c i $
i c a l l y d e c l a r e d a n d c a n n o t % e pr es #med3 l i * e
%ac * wa es , i t i s a s epar at e and di s t i nc t r el i e$
i v en t o an i l l eal l y di s mi s s ed empl oy ee.
- T!er e %ei n no s pec i $ i c or der $ or r ei ns t at ement and
t !e or der %ein $or complainant,s separation, t!ere can %e no %asis
$or t!e award o$ salariesI%ac* waes d#rin t!e pendency o$ appeal.
T!i s Co#r t !ad dec l ar ed i n t !e a$ or es ai d c as e t !at
r ei ns t at ement d#r i n appeal i s warranted only w!en t!e
+a%or Ar%iter !imsel$ r#les t!at t!e dismissed employee s!o#ld %e
reinstated. F#t t!is was precisely %eca#se on appeal to t!e -+RC, it
$o#nd t!at t!ere was no i l l eal di smi ssal 3 t!#s, nei t!er
rei nstatement nor %ac* waes may %e awarded.
- An illeally dismissed employee is entitled to two relie$s: %ac* waes
and reinstatement. T!e t wo rel i e$ s provi ded are separat e
and di st i nct . In i nst ances w!ere rei nstatement i s
n o l o n e r $ e a s i % l e % e c a # s e o $ s t r a i n e d r e l a t i o
n s % e t w e e n t ! e e m p l o y e e a n d t ! e empl oye r , s ep
ar at i on pay i s r ant ed. I n e$ $ ec t , an i l l eal l y
di s mi s s ed empl o yee i s entitled to eit!er reinstatement, i$ via%le,
or separation pay i$ reinstatement is no loner via%le, and %ac* waes.
- T ! e n o r m a l c o n s e & # e n c e s o $ r e s p o n d e n t s ,
i l l e a l d i s m i s s a l , t ! e n , a r e rei nst at ement
wi t!o#t l oss o$ seni ori t y ri !ts, and payment o$ %ac* waes
comp#t ed $rom t!e time compensation was wit!!eld #p to t!e date
o$ act#al reinstatement. 2!ere r ei ns t at ement i s no l oner
v i a%l e as an opt i on, s epar at i on pa y e&#i v al ent t o
one ( 1) m o n t ! s a l a r y $ o r e v e r y y e a r o $ s e r v i c e
s ! o # l d % e a w a r d e d a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e .
T ! e payment o$ separation pay is in addition to payment o$ %ac*
waes.
Case # 11 Buenvia>e vs. C'
FACTS:
Petitioners were $ormer employees o$ Cottonway Mar*etin Corp.
(Cottonway), !ired as promo irls $or t!eir arment prod#cts. A$ter t!eir
services were terminated as t!e company was alleedly s#$$erin %#siness
losses, petitioners $iled wit! t!e -+RC a complaint $or illeal dismissal,
#nderpayment o$ salary, and non-payment o$ premi#m pay $or rest day,
service incentive leave pay and t!irteent! mont! pay aainst Cottonway
Mar*etin Corp. and -etwor* Fas!ion Inc.I>CT International Tradin.
T!e +A iss#ed a 8ecision $indin petitioners: retrenc!ment valid and
orderin Cottonway to pay petitioners: separation pay and t!eir proportionate
t!irteent! mont! pay.
En appeal, t!e -+RC, reversed t!e 8ecision o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter and
ordered t!e reinstatement o$ petitioners wit!o#t loss o$ seniority ri!ts and
ot!er privilees. It also ordered Cottonway to pay petitioners t!eir
proportionate t!irteent! mont! pay and t!eir $#ll %ac*waes incl#sive o$
allowances and ot!er %ene$its, or t!eir monetary e&#ivalent comp#ted $rom
t!e time t!eir salaries were wit!!eld $rom t!em #p to t!e date o$ t!eir act#al
reinstatement.
Cottonway $iled a motion $or reconsideration w!ic! was denied %y t!e
Commission and $iled wit! t!e -+RC a mani$estation statin t!at t!ey !ave
complied wit! t!e order o$ reinstatement %y sendin notices re&#irin t!e
petitioners to ret#rn to wor*, %#t to no avail3 and conse&#ently, t!ey sent
letters to petitioners in$ormin t!em t!at t!ey !ave lost t!eir employment $or
$ail#re to comply wit! t!e ret#rn to wor* order. Cottonway also $iled a petition
$or certiorari wit! t!e S#preme Co#rt w!ic! was dismissed.
Cottonway $iled a mani$estation wit! t!e -+RC reiteratin t!eir
alleations in t!eir mani$estation and allein t!at petitioners !ave already
$o#nd employment elsew!ere.
T!e +a%or Ar%iter Rom#l#s S. Protasio iss#ed an Erder declarin t!at
t!e award o$ %ac*waes and proportionate t!irteent! mont! pay to
petitioners s!o#ld %e limited $rom t!e time o$ t!eir illeal dismissal #p to t!e
time t!ey received t!e notice o$ termination sent %y t!e company #pon t!eir
re$#sal to report $or wor* despite t!e order o$ reinstatement. 'e cited t!e
$act t!at petitioners $ailed to report to t!eir posts wit!o#t "#sti$ia%le reason
despite respondent:s order re&#irin t!em to ret#rn to wor*
immediately. T!e +a%or Ar%iter ordered t!e Researc! and Investiation /nit
to recomp#te t!e monetary award in accordance wit! its r#lin.
T!e Commission r#led t!at its 8ecision dated Marc! 4A, 1HHA !as
%ecome $inal and eBec#tory and it is t!e ministerial d#ty o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter
to iss#e t!e correspondin writ o$ eBec#tion to e$$ect $#ll and #n&#ali$ied
implementation o$ said decision. T!e Commission t!#s ordered t!at t!e
records o$ t!e case %e remanded to t!e +a%or Ar%iter $or
eBec#tion. Cottonway moved $or reconsideration o$ said resol#tion, to no
avail.
'ence, Cottonway $iled a petition $or certiorari wit! t!e Co#rt o$
Appeals see*in t!e reversal o$ t!e r#lin o$ t!e -+RC and t!e
reinstatement o$ t!e Erder dated April ?, 1HH? iss#ed %y +a%or Ar%iter
Rom#l#s S. Protasio.
T!e Co#rt o$ Appeals denied petitioners: motion $or reconsideration.
ISS/0: 2!et!er or not t!e comp#tation o$ petitioners, %ac* waes s!o#ld %e
limited $rom t!e time t!ey illeally dismissed #ntil t!ey received t!e notice o$
termination sent %y Cottonway or w!et!er it s!o#ld %e comp#ted $rom t!e
time o$ t!eir illeal dismissal #ntil t!eir act#al reinstatement.
'0+8:
T!e comp#tation o$ t!e %ac* waes s!all %e comp#ted $rom t!e time o$
illeal dismissal #ntil t!eir act#al reinstatement.
Reinstatement restores t!e employee to t!e position $rom w!ic! !e
was removed, i.e., to !is status $uo ante dismissal, w!ile t!e rant o$
%ac*waes allows t!e same employee to recover $rom t!e employer t!at
w!ic! !e lost %y way o$ waes %eca#se o$ !is dismissal.
<4@=
/nder R.A. AM17, employees w!o are illeally dismissed are entitled to full
5ac8wa6es, incl#sive o$ allowances and ot!er %ene$its or t!eir monetary
e&#ivalent, comp#ted $rom t!e time t!eir act#al compensation was wit!!eld
$rom t!em #p to t!e time o$ t!eir act#al reinstatement. I$ reinstatement is no
loner possi%le, t!e %ac*waes s!all %e comp#ted $rom t!e time o$ t!eir
illeal termination #p to t!e $inality o$ t!e decision.
To "#sti$y t!e modi$ication o$ t!e $inal and eBec#tory decision o$ t!e
-+RC dated Marc! 4A, 1HHA, t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals cited t!e eBistence o$ a
s#pervenin event, t!at is, t!e valid termination o$ petitioners: employment
d#e to t!eir re$#sal to ret#rn to wor* despite notice $rom respondents
reinstatin t!em to t!eir $ormer position.
2e cannot conc#r wit! said r#lin. Petitioners: alleed $ail#re to ret#rn
to wor* cannot %e made t!e %asis $or t!eir termination. S#c! $ail#re does
not amo#nt to a%andonment w!ic! wo#ld "#sti$y t!e severance o$ t!eir
employment. To warrant a valid dismissal on t!e ro#nd o$ a%andonment,
t!e employer m#st prove t!e conc#rrence o$ two elements: (1) t!e $ail#re to
report $or wor* or a%sence wit!o#t valid or "#sti$ia%le reason, and (4) a clear
intention to sever t!e employer-employee relations!ip.
<46=
T!e $acts o$ t!is case do not s#pport t!e claim o$ Cottonway t!at petitioners
!ave a%andoned t!eir desire to ret#rn to t!eir previo#s wor* at said
company. It appears t!at t!ree mont!s a$ter t!e -+RC !ad rendered its
decision orderin petitioners, reinstatement to t!eir $ormer positions,
Cottonway sent individ#al notices to petitioners mandatin t!em to
immediately report to wor*.
It appears t!at t!e s#pposed notice sent %y Cottonway to t!e
petitioners demandin t!at t!ey report %ac* to wor* immediately was only a
sc!eme to remove t!e petitioners $or ood. Petitioners, $ail#re to
instantaneo#sly a%ide %y t!e directive ave t!em a convenient reason to
dispense wit! t!eir services. T!is t!e Co#rt cannot allow. Cottonway cited
Article 445 o$ t!e +a%or Code providin t!at t!e decision orderin t!e
reinstatement o$ an illeally dismissed employee is immediately eBec#tory
even pendin appeal as %asis $or its decision to terminate t!e employment o$
petitioners. 2e are not convinced. Article 445 o$ t!e +a%or Code provides:
J'%". 99<. '33eal. C 8ecisions, awards, or orders o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter are
$inal and eBec#tory #nless appealed to t!e Commission %y any or %ot!
parties wit!in ten (1@) calendar days $rom receipt o$ s#c! decisions, awards,
or orders.
In any event, t!e decision o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter reinstatin a dismissed or
separated employee, inso$ar as t!e reinstatement aspect is concerned, s!all
immediately %e eBec#tory, even pendin appeal. T!e employee s!all eit!er
%e admitted %ac* to wor* #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailin
prior to !is dismissal or separation or, at t!e option o$ t!e employer, merely
reinstated in t!e payroll. T!e postin o$ a %ond %y t!e employer s!all not
stay t!e eBec#tion $or reinstatement provided !erein. B B B
T!e $oreoin provision is intended $or t!e %ene$it o$ t!e employee and
cannot %e #sed to de$eat t!eir own interest. T!e law mandates t!e employer
to eit!er admit t!e dismissed employee %ac* to wor* #nder t!e same terms
and conditions prevailin prior to !is dismissal or to reinstate !im in t!e
payroll to a%ate $#rt!er loss o$ income on t!e part o$ t!e employee d#rin t!e
pendency o$ t!e appeal. F#t we cannot stretc! t!e lan#ae o$ t!e law as to
ive t!e employer t!e ri!t to remove an employee w!o $ails to immediately
comply wit! t!e reinstatement order, especially w!en t!ere is reasona%le
eBplanation $or t!e $ail#re. I$ Cottonway were really sincere in its o$$er to
immediately reinstate petitioners to t!eir $ormer positions, it s!o#ld !ave
iven t!em reasona%le time to wind #p t!eir c#rrent preocc#pation or at least
to eBplain w!y t!ey co#ld not ret#rn to wor* at Cottonway at
once. Cottonway did not do eit!er. Instead, it ave t!em only $ive days to
report to t!eir posts and w!en t!e petitioners $ailed to do so, it lost no time in
servin t!em t!eir individ#al notices o$ termination. 2e are, t!ere$ore, not
impressed wit! t!e claim o$ respondent company t!at petitioners !ave %een
validly dismissed and !ence t!eir %ac*waes s!o#ld only %e comp#ted #p to
t!at time. 2e !old t!at petitioners are entitled to receive $#ll %ac*waes
comp#ted $rom t!e time t!eir compensation was act#ally wit!!eld #ntil t!eir
act#al reinstatement, or i$ reinstatement is no loner possi%le, #ntil t!e
$inality o$ t!e decision, in accordance wit! t!e 8ecision o$ t!e -+RC w!ic!
!as attained $inality.
Case # 16 Pfier vs. ?elasco
&'C"()
Private respondent Geraldine +. Gelasco was employed wit! petitioner
PFIL0R, I-C. as Pro$essional 'ealt! Care Representative. Gelasco !ad a
medical wor* #p $or !er !i!-ris* prenancy and was s#%se&#ently advised
%ed rest w!ic! res#lted in !er eBtendin !er leave o$ a%sence. Gelasco $iled
!er sic* leave $or t!e period $rom 4A Marc! to 1? >#ne 4@@5, !er vacation
leave $rom 1H >#ne to 4@ >#ne 4@@5, and leave wit!o#t pay $rom 45 >#ne to
16 >#ly 4@@5.
2!ile Gelasco was still on leave, PFIL0R t!ro#! its Area Sales Manaer,
!erein petitioner Ferdinand Corte., personally served Gelasco a ;S!ow-
ca#se -otice; Aside $rom mentionin a%o#t an investiation on !er possi%le
violations o$ company wor* r#les reardin ;#na#t!ori.ed deals andIor
disco#nts in money or samples and #na#t!ori.ed wit!drawal andIor p#ll-o#t
o$ stoc*s; and instr#ctin !er to s#%mit !er eBplanation on t!e matter wit!in
6? !o#rs $rom receipt o$ t!e same, t!e notice also advised !er t!at s!e was
%ein placed #nder ;preventive s#spension; $or 5@ days or $rom t!at day to A
A##st 4@@5 and conse&#ently ordered to s#rrender certain
;acco#nta%ilities.K
In response, Gelasco sent a letter addressed to Corte. denyin t!e c!ares.
In !er letter, Gelasco claimed t!at t!e transaction wit! Merc#ry 8r#,
Masaysay Franc! covered %y !er c!ec* (no. 1@M4) in t!e amo#nt
o$ P45,H?@.@@ was merely to accommodate two #ndisclosed patients o$ a
certain 8r. Renato Manalo. In s#pport t!ereto, Gelasco attac!ed t!e 8octor,s
letter and t!e a$$idavit o$ t!e latter,s secretary.
Gelasco received a ;Second S!ow-ca#se -otice; in$ormin !er o$ additional
developments in t!eir investiation. Accordin to t!e notice, a certain Carlito
>omen eBec#ted an a$$idavit pointin to Gelasco as t!e one w!o transacted
wit! a printin s!op to print PFIL0R disco#nt co#pons. >omen also
presented teBt messaes oriinatin $rom Gelasco,s company iss#ed
cellp!one re$errin to t!e printin o$ t!e said co#pons. Aain, Gelasco was
iven 6? !o#rs to s#%mit !er written eBplanation on t!e matter. Gelasco sent
a letter to PFIL0R via A%oiti. co#rier service as*in $or additional time to
answer t!e second S!ow-ca#se -otice.
Gelasco $iled a complaint $or illeal s#spension wit! money claims %e$ore t!e
Reional Ar%itration Franc!. T!e $ollowin day, PFIL0R sent !er a letter
invitin !er to a disciplinary !earin. Gelasco received it #nder protest and
in$ormed PFIL0R via t!e receivin copy o$ t!e said letter t!at s!e !ad
loded a complaint aainst t!e latter and t!at t!e iss#es t!at may %e raised
in t!e said !earin ;can %e tac*led d#rin t!e !earin o$ !er case; or at t!e
preliminary con$erence set $or 7 and ? o$ A##st 4@@5. S!e li*ewise opted to
wit!!old answerin t!e Second S!ow-ca#se -otice. Gelasco received a
;T!ird S!ow-ca#se -otice,; toet!er wit! copies o$ t!e a$$idavits o$ two
Franc! Manaers o$ Merc#ry 8r#, as*in !er $or !er comment wit!in 6?
!o#rs. Finally, PFIL0R in$ormed Gelasco o$ its ;Manaement 8ecision;
terminatin !er employment.
T!e +a%or Ar%iter rendered its decision declarin t!e dismissal o$ Gelasco
illeal, orderin !er reinstatement wit! %ac*waes and $#rt!er awardin
moral and eBemplary damaes wit! attorney,s $ees. En appeal, t!e -+RC
a$$irmed t!e same %#t deleted t!e award o$ moral and eBemplary damaes
In a 8ecision, t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals #p!eld t!e validity o$ respondent,s
dismissal $rom employment.
ISS/0:
2!et!er or not t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals committed a serio#s %#t reversi%le error
w!en it ordered P$i.er to pay Gelasco waes $rom t!e date o$ t!e +a%or
Ar%iter,s decision orderin !er reinstatement #ntil -ovem%er 45, 4@@7, w!en
t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals rendered its decision declarin Gelasco,s dismissal
valid.
'0+8:
T!e petition is wit!o#t merit.
In t!e case at %ar, respondent,s decision to claim separation pay over
reinstatement !ad no leal e$$ect, not only %eca#se t!ere was no en#ine
compliance %y t!e employer to t!e reinstatement order %#t also %eca#se t!e
employer c!ose not to act on said claim. I$ it was PFIL0R,s position t!at
respondent,s act amo#nted to a ;resination; it s!o#ld !ave in$ormed
respondent t!at it was acceptin !er resination and t!at in view t!ereo$ s!e
was not entitled to separation pay. PFIL0R did not respond to respondent,s
demand at all. As it was, PFIL0R,s $ail#re to e$$ect reinstatement and accept
respondent,s o$$er to terminate !er employment relations!ip wit! t!e
company meant t!at, prior to t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals, reversal in t!e -ovem%er
45, 4@@7 8ecision, PFIL0R,s lia%ility $or %ac*waes contin#ed to accr#e $or
t!e period not covered %y t!e writ o$ eBec#tion dated May 46, 4@@7 #ntil
-ovem%er 45, 4@@7.
Erdinarily, t!e employer is re&#ired to reinstate t!e employee d#rin t!e
pendency o$ t!e appeal p#rs#ant to Art. 445, pararap! 5 o$ t!e +a%or Code,
w!ic! states:
I$ t!e decision o$ t!e la%or ar%iter is later reversed on appeal #pon t!e
$indin t!at t!e ro#nd $or dismissal is valid, t!en t!e employer !as t!e ri!t
to re&#ire t!e dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to re$#nd t!e
salaries sI!e received w!ile t!e case was pendin appeal, or it can %e
ded#cted $rom t!e accr#ed %ene$its t!at t!e dismissed employee was
entitled to receive $rom !isI!er employer #nder eBistin laws, collective
%arainin areement provisions, and company practices. 'owever, i$ t!e
employee was reinstated to wor* d#rin t!e pendency o$ t!e appeal, t!en
t!e employee is entitled to t!e compensation received $or act#al services
rendered wit!o#t need o$ re$#nd.
In s#m, t!e Co#rt reiterates t!e principle t!at reinstatement pendin appeal
necessitates t!at it m#st %e immediately sel$-eBec#tory wit!o#t need $or a
writ o$ eBec#tion d#rin t!e pendency o$ t!e appeal, i$ t!e law is to serve its
no%le p#rpose, and any attempt on t!e part o$ t!e employer to evade or
delay its eBec#tion s!o#ld not %e allowed. F#rt!ermore, we li*ewise restate
o#r r#lin t!at an order $or reinstatement entitles an employee to receive !is
accr#ed %ac*waes $rom t!e moment t!e reinstatement order was iss#ed #p
to t!e date w!en t!e same was reversed %y a !i!er co#rt wit!o#t $ear o$
re$#ndin w!at !e !ad received. It cannot %e denied t!at, #nder o#r stat#tory
and "#rispr#dential $ramewor*, respondent is entitled to payment o$ !er
waes $or t!e period a$ter 8ecem%er 7, 4@@5 #ntil t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals
8ecision dated -ovem%er 45, 4@@7, notwit!standin t!e $indin t!erein t!at
!er dismissal was leal and $or "#st ca#se. T!#s, t!e payment o$ s#c! waes
cannot %e deemed as #n"#st enric!ment on respondent,s part.
Case # 17 :en3hil vs. '5in6
&'C"()
+A Geo%el A. Fartola%ac r#led
?
t!at t!e respondents !ad %een illeally
dismissed %y 2enp!il. Accordin to t!e +A, t!e alleation o$ serio#s
miscond#ct aainst t!e respondents !ad no $act#al and leal
%asis. Conse&#ently, +A Fartola%ac ordered 2enp!il to immediately
reinstate t!e respondents to t!eir respective positions or to e&#ivalent ones,
w!et!er act#all or in t!e payroll. Also, t!e +A ordered 2enp!il to pay t!e
respondents t!eir %ac*waes $rom Fe%r#ary 5, 4@@@ #ntil t!e date o$ t!eir
act#al reinstatement
Feca#se o$ t!e #n$avora%le +A decision, 2enp!il appealed to t!e -+RC. In
t!e meantime, t!e respondents moved $or t!e immediate eBec#tion o$ t!e
+A,s 8ecem%er ?, 4@@@ decision.
2enp!il and t!e respondents entered into a compromise areement

%e$ore
+A Fartola%ac. T!ey areed to t!e respondents, payroll reinstatement w!ile
2enp!il,s appeal wit! t!e -+RC was onoin. 2enp!il also areed to pay
t!e acc#m#lated salaries o$ t!e respondents $or t!e payroll period $rom April
7, 4@@1 #ntil Ecto%er 17, 4@@1.As $or t!e remainin payroll period startin
Ecto%er 1A, 4@@1, 2enp!il committed itsel$ to credit t!e respective salaries
o$ t!e respondents to t!eir ATM payroll acco#nts #ntil s#c! time t!at t!e
&#estioned decision o$ +A Fartola%ac is eit!er modi$ied, amended or
reversed %y t!e 'onora%le -ational +a%or Relations Commission.
T!e -+RC iss#ed a resol#tion a$$irmin +A Fartola%ac,s decision wit!
modi$ications. Instead o$ orderin t!e respondents, reinstatement, t!e -+RC
directed 2enp!il to pay t!e respondents t!eir respective separation pay at
t!e rate o$ one (1) mont! salary $or every year o$ service. Also, t!e -+RC
$o#nd t!at w!ile t!e respondents !ad %een illeally dismissed, t!ey !ad not
%een illeally s#spended. T!#s, t!e period $rom Fe%r#ary 5 to Fe%r#ary 4?,
4@@@ d#rin w!ic! t!e respondents were on preventive s#spension C was
eBcl#ded %y t!e -+RC in t!e comp#tation o$ t!e respondents, %ac*waes.
S#%se&#ently, 2enp!il moved $or t!e reconsideration

o$ t!e -+RC,s >an#ary
5@, 4@@4 resol#tion, %#t t!e -+RC denied t!e motion in anot!er resol#tion.
2enp!il t!erea$ter went #p to t!e CA via a petition $or certiorari to &#estion
t!e -+RC,s >an#ary 5@, 4@@4 and Septem%er 46, 4@@4 resol#tions.

T!e CA
rendered its decision reversin t!e -+RC,s $indin t!at t!e respondents !ad
%een illeally dismissed. Accordin to t!e CA, t!ere was eno#! evidence to
s!ow t!at t!e respondents !ad %een #ilty o$ serio#s miscond#ct3 t!#s, t!eir
dismissal was $or a valid ca#se.

T!e respondents moved $or t!e
reconsideration o$ t!e CA,s decision.

In a resol#tion dated Fe%r#ary 45,
4@@6, t!e CA denied t!e respondents, motion.
En appeal to t!e S#preme Co#rt (SC) via R#le 67 (doc*eted as G.R. -o.
1A466M and dated 8ecem%er 4M, 4@@A), t!e SC denied t!e respondents
petition $or review on certiorari

and a$$irmed t!e CA,s A##st 4M, 4@@5
decision and Fe%r#ary 45, 4@@6 resol#tion. T!e respondents did not $ile any
motion $or reconsideration to &#estion t!e SC,s decision3 t!#s, t!e decision
%ecame $inal and eBec#tory on Fe%r#ary 17, 4@@M.
Sometime a$ter t!e SC,s decision in G.R. -o. 1A466M %ecame $inal and
eBec#tory, t!e respondents $iled wit! +A Fartola%ac a motion $or comp#tation
and iss#ance o$ writ o$ eBec#tion. T!e respondents asserted in t!is motion
t!at alt!o#! t!e CA,s r#lin on t!e a%sence o$ illeal dismissal (as a$$irmed
%y t!e SC) was adverse to t!em, #nder t!e law and settled "#rispr#dence,
t!ey were still entitled to %ac*waes $rom t!e time o$ t!eir dismissal #ntil t!e
-+RC,s decision $indin t!em to %e illeally dismissed was reversed wit!
$inality.
T!e -+RC denied t!e parties, respective appeals in its decision dated Marc!
4A, 4@1@ and a$$irmed in toto t!e +A,s order. Fot! parties moved $or t!e
reconsideration o$ t!e -+RC,s decision %#t t!e -+RC denied t!eir respective
motions in t!e resol#tion o$ Septem%er 17, 4@1@.
T!e CA reversed t!e -+RC r#lins and prescri%ed a di$$erent comp#tation
period.
T!e CA li*ewise !eld t!at t!e compromise areement did not contain any
waiver o$ ri!ts $or any award t!e respondents mi!t !ave received w!en
t!e -+RC c!aned or modi$ied t!e +A,s award.
ISS/0:
2!et!er or not t!e respondents were still entitled to reinstatement pay
notwit!standin t!e validity o$ t!eir dismissal
/.L0)
An order o$ reinstatement is immediately eBec#tory even pendin appeal.
T!e employer !as t!e o%liation to reinstate and pay t!e waes o$ t!e
dismissed employee d#rin t!e period o$ appeal #ntil reversal %y t!e !i!er
co#rt.
/nder Article 445 o$ t!e +a%or Code, ;t!e decision o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter
reinstatin a dismissed or separated employee, inso$ar as t!e reinstatement
aspect is concerned, s!all immediately %e eBec#tory, even pendin appeal.
T!e employee s!all eit!er %e admitted %ac* to wor* #nder t!e same terms
and conditions prevailin prior to !is dismissal or separation, or at t!e option
o$ t!e employer, merely reinstated in t!e payroll. T!e postin o$ a %ond %y
t!e employer s!all not stay t!e eBec#tion $or reinstatement.;
2e emp!asi.e t!at t!e %asis $or t!e payment o$ %ac*waes is di$$erent $rom
t!at o$ t!e award o$ separation pay. Separation pay is ranted w!ere
reinstatement is no loner advisa%le %eca#se o$ strained relations %etween
t!e employee and t!e employer. Fac*waes represent compensation t!at
s!o#ld !ave %een earned %#t were not collected %eca#se o$ t!e #n"#st
dismissal. T!e %asis $or comp#tin separation pay is #s#ally t!e lent! o$
t!e employee,s past service, w!ile t!at $or %ac*waes is t!e act#al period
w!en t!e employee was #nlaw$#lly prevented $rom wor*in.
'ad 2enp!il really wanted to p#t a stop to t!e r#nnin o$ t!e period $or t!e
payment o$ t!e respondents, %ac*waes, t!en it s!o#ld !ave immediately
complied wit! t!e -+RC,s order to award t!e employees t!eir separation
pay in lie# o$ reinstatement. T!is action wo#ld !ave immediately severed t!e
employer-employee relations!ip. 'owever, t!e records are %ere$t o$ any
evidence t!at 2enp!il act#ally paid t!e respondents, separation pay. T!#s,
t!e employer-employee relations!ip %etween 2enp!il and t!e respondents
never ceased and t!e employment stat#s remained pendin and #ncertain
#ntil t!e CA act#ally rendered its decision t!at t!e respondents !ad not %een
illeally dismissed. In t!e conteBt o$ t!e parties, areement, it was only at
t!is point t!at t!e payment o$ %ac*waes s!o#ld !ave stopped.
A compromise areement s!o#ld not %e contrary to law, morals, ood
c#stoms and p#%lic policy.
2!ile it is tr#e t!at a compromise areement is %indin %etween t!e parties
and %ecomes t!e law %etween t!em,it is also a r#le t!at to %e valid, a
compromise areement m#st not %e contrary to law, morals, ood c#stoms
and p#%lic policy.
In t!e present case, t!e parties, compromise areement simply provided t!at
2enp!il,s o%liation to pay t!e respondents, %ac*waes s!all end t!e
moment t!e -+RC modi$ies, amends or reverses t!e illeal dismissal
decision o$ +A Fartola%ac. En its $ace, t!ere is not!in invalid wit! s#c!
stip#lation. Indeed, !ad t!e -+RC reversed t!e +A, t!e o%liation to pay
%ac*waes wo#ld !ave stopped. T!e -+RC, !owever, did not decree a
reversal o$ t!e $indin o$ illeal dismissal. In $act, it a$$irmed t!e illeal
dismissal concl#sion, con$inin itsel$ merely to a modi$ication o$ t!e
conse&#ences o$ t!e illeal dismissal C $rom reinstatement to t!e payment o$
separation pay.
T!is ;modi$ication; o$ co#rse we cannot accept3 t!e option #nder t!e leal
policy is solely limited to a r#lin t!at t!e respondents !ad not %een illeally
dismissed. Et!erwise, we wo#ld %e violatin t!e +a%or Code,s policy
entitlin illeally dismissed employees to t!eir ri!t to %ac*waes even
d#rin t!e period o$ appeal.
Case # 1! (yet et al vs. &airland
FACT:
Fairland is a domestic corporation enaed in arments %#siness, w!ile
S#san de +eon (S#san) is t!e ownerIproprietress o$ 2eesan Garments
(2eesan).
En t!e ot!er !and, t!e complainin wor*ers (t!e wor*ers) are sewers,
trimmers, !elpers, a #ard and a secretary w!o were !ired %y 2eesan as
$ollows:
2or*ers Marialy E. Sy, and ot!ers $iled wit! t!e Ar%itration Franc! o$ t!e
-+RC a Complaint $or #nderpayment andIor non-payment o$ waes,
overtime pay, premi#m pay $or !olidays, 15t! mont! pay and ot!er monetary
%ene$its aainst S#sanI2eesan. T!e rest o$ t!e a$orementioned wor*ers
also $iled similar complaints. 0vent#ally all t!e cases were consolidated as
t!ey involved t!e same ca#ses o$ action.
2eesan $iled %e$ore t!e 8epartment o$ +a%or and 0mployment--ational
Capital Reion (8E+0--CR) a report on its temporary clos#re $or a period o$
not less t!an siB mont!s. As t!e wor*ers were not anymore allowed to wor*
on t!at same day, t!ey $iled on Fe%r#ary 1?, 4@@5 an Amended
Complaint, and on Marc! 15, 4@@5, anot!er pleadin entitled Amended
Complaints and Position Paper $or Complainants, to incl#de t!e c!are o$
illeal dismissal and impleaded Fairland and its manaer, 8e%%ie
Mand#a%as (8e%%ie), as additional respondents.
T!e +A rendered a decision dismissin t!e complaint $or lac* o$ merit. T!e
-+RC set aside t!e appealed decision and t!e dismissal o$ complainants is
declared illeal.
T!e CA,s First 8ivision denied Fairland,s petition. It a$$irmed t!e -+RC,s
r#lin t!at t!e wor*ers were illeally dismissed and t!at 2eesan and
Fairland are solidarily lia%le to t!em as la%or-only contractor and principal,
respectively. T!e CA,s Special -int! 8ivision reversed t!e First 8ivision,s
r#lin. It !eld t!at t!e la%or tri%#nals did not ac&#ire "#risdiction over t!e
person o$ Fairland, and even ass#min t!ey did, Fairland is not lia%le to t!e
wor*ers since 2eesan is not a mere la%or-only contractor %#t a %ona $ide
independent contractor. T!e Special -int! 8ivision t!#s ann#lled and set
aside t!e assailed -+RC 8ecision and Resol#tion inso$ar as Fairland is
concerned and eBcl#ded t!e latter t!ere$rom.
ISS/0S:
1) 2!et!er or not t!e CA erred in $indin t!at petitioner is a la%or-only
contractor actin as an aent o$ respondent Fairland.
4) 2!et!er or not t!e CA erred in $indin t!at t!e individ#al private
respondents were illeally dismissed.
5) 2!et!er or not t!e -+RC ac&#ired "#risdiction over t!e person o$
t!e de$endant.
6) 2!et!er t!e respondent is solidarily lia%le wit! t!e wit! 2eesan
GarmentIS#san 8e +eon.
'0+8:
1) 9es. Susan*+eesan is a mere labor#only contractor( - T!ere is
la%or-only contractin w!en t!e contractor or s#%contractor merely
recr#its, s#pplies or places wor*ers to per$orm a "o%, wor* or
service $or a principal. In la%or-only contractin, t!e $ollowin
elements are present: (a) T!e person s#pplyin wor*ers to an
employer does not !ave s#%stantial capital or investment in t!e
$orm o$ tools, e&#ipment, mac!ineries, wor* premises, amon
ot!ers3 and (%) T!e wor*ers recr#ited and placed %y s#c! person
are per$ormin activities w!ic! are directly related to t!e principal
%#siness o$ t!e employer.
T!e Co#rt $inds t!at S#san,s e$$ort to neate Fairland,s owners!ip
o$ t!e wor* premises is $#tile. T!e loical concl#sion now is t!at
2eesan does not !ave its own wor*place and is only #tili.in t!e
wor*place o$ Fairland to w!om it s#pplied wor*ers $or its arment
%#siness.
S#$$ice it to say t!at t!e pres#mption is t!at a contractor is a la%or-
only contractor #nless s#c! contractor overcomes t!e %#rden o$
provin t!at it !as s#%stantial capital, investment, tools and t!e li*e.
As S#sanI2eesan was not a%le to add#ce evidence t!at 2eesan
!ad any s#%stantial capital, investment or assets to per$orm t!e
wor* contracted $or, t!e pres#mption t!at 2eesan is a la%or-only
contractor stands
4) -o. The )ational Labor %elations !ommission and the !ourt of
&ppeals did not err in their findins of illeal dismissal( - To neate
illeal dismissal, S#san relies on t!e d#e clos#re o$ 2eesan
p#rs#ant to t!e 0sta%lis!ment Termination Report it s#%mitted to
t!e 8E+0--CR. T!e %#rden o$ provin t!at a temporary
s#spension is bona fide $alls #pon t!e employer.; Clearly !ere,
S#sanI2eesan was not a%le to disc!are t!is %#rden. T!e
doc#ments 2eesan s#%mitted to s#pport its claim o$ severe
%#siness losses cannot %e considered as proo$ o$ $inancial crisis to
"#sti$y t!e temporary s#spension o$ its operations since t!ey clearly
appear to !ave not %een d#ly $iled wit! t!e FIR. 2eesan $ailed to
satis$actorily eBplain w!y t!e Income TaB Ret#rns and $inancial
statements it s#%mitted do not %ear t!e sinat#re o$ t!e receivin
o$$icers. Also !ard to inore is t!e a%sence o$ t!e mandatory 5@-day
prior notice to t!e wor*ers.
'ence, t!e Co#rt $inds t!at S#san $ailed to prove t!at t!e
s#spension o$ operations o$ 2eesan was bona fide and t!at it
complied wit! t!e mandatory re&#irement o$ notice #nder t!e law.
S#san li*ewise $ailed to disc!are !er %#rden o$ provin t!at t!e
termination o$ t!e wor*ers was $or a law$#l ca#se. T!ere$ore, t!e
-+RC and t!e CA, in CA-G.R. SP -o. H5?A@, did not err in t!eir
$indins t!at t!e wor*ers were illeally dismissed %y
S#sanI2eesan.
5) 9es. &lthouh not served with summons, ,urisdiction over -airland
and Debbie was ac$uired throuh their voluntary appearance(# T!e
SC did not aree wit! t!e reasons relied #pon %y t!e CA,s Special
-int! 8ivision in its May H, 4@@? Resol#tion in CA-G.R. -o. H54@6
w!en it r#led t!at Fairland, t!ro#! Atty. Geronimo, did not
vol#ntarily s#%mit itsel$ to t!e +a%or Ar%iter,s "#risdiction.
T!e pres#mption o$ a#t!ority o$ co#nsel to appear on %e!al$ o$ a
client is $o#nd %ot! in t!e R#les o$ Co#rt and in t!e -ew R#les o$
Proced#re o$ t!e -+RC.
Sec. 41, R#le 15? o$ t!e R#les o$ Co#rt provides: Sec. 41. A#t!ority
o$ attorney to appear C An attorney is pres#med to %e properly
a#t!ori.ed to represent any ca#se in w!ic! !e appears, and no
written power o$ attorney is re&#ired to a#t!ori.e !im to appear in
co#rt $or !is client, %#t t!e presidin "#de may, on motion o$ eit!er
party and reasona%le ro#nds t!ere$or %ein s!own, re&#ire any
attorney w!o ass#mes t!e ri!t to appear in a case to prod#ce or
prove t!e a#t!ority #nder w!ic! !e appears, and to disclose
w!enever pertinent to any iss#e, t!e name o$ t!e person w!o
employed !im, and may t!ere#pon ma*e s#c! order as "#stice
re&#ires. An attorney will$#lly appearin in co#rt $or a person
wit!o#t %ein employed, #nless %y leave o$ t!e co#rt, may %e
p#nis!ed $or contempt as an o$$icer o$ t!e co#rt w!o !as
mis%e!aved in !is o$$icial transactions.
En t!e ot!er !and, Sec. ?, R#le III o$ t!e -ew R#les o$ Proced#re
o$ t!e -+RC, w!ic! is t!e r#les prevailin at t!at time, states in
part: S0CTIE- ?. APP0ARA-C0S. - An attorney appearin $or a
party is pres#med to %e properly a#t!ori.ed $or t!at p#rpose.
'owever, !e s!all %e re&#ired to indicate in !is pleadins !is PTR
and IFP n#m%ers $or t!e c#rrent year.
Fetween t!e two provisions providin $or s#c! a#t!ority o$ co#nsel
to appear, t!e +a%or Ar%iter is primarily %o#nd %y t!e latter one, t!e
-+RC R#les o$ Proced#re %ein speci$ically applica%le to la%or
cases. As Atty. Geronimo consistently indicated !is PTR and IFP
n#m%ers in t!e pleadins !e $iled, t!ere is no reason $or t!e +a%or
Ar%iter not to eBtend to Atty. Geronimo t!e pres#mption t!at !e is
a#t!ori.ed to represent Fairland.
0ven i$ we are to apply Sec. 41, R#le 15? o$ t!e R#les o$ Co#rt, t!e
+a%or Ar%iter cannot %e eBpected to re&#ire Atty. Geronimo to prove
!is a#t!ority #nder said provision since t!ere was no motion to t!at
e$$ect $rom eit!er party s!owin reasona%le ro#nds t!ere$or.
Moreover, t!e $act t!at 8e%%ie sined t!e veri$ication attac!ed to
t!e position paper $iled %y Atty. Geronimo, wit!o#t a secretary,s
certi$icate or %oard resol#tion attac!ed t!ereto, is not s#$$icient
reason $or t!e +a%or Ar%iter to %e on !is #ard and re&#ire Atty.
Geronimo to prove !is a#t!ority. 8e%%ie, as General Manaer o$
Fairland is one o$ t!e o$$icials o$ t!e company w!o can sin t!e
veri$ication wit!o#t need o$ a %oard resol#tion %eca#se as s#c!,
s!e is in a position to veri$y t!e tr#t!$#lness and correctness o$ t!e
alleations in t!e petition.
6) 9es. -airland is +eesan.s principal( # Fairland, t!ere$ore, as t!e
principal employer, is solidarily lia%le wit! S#sanI2eesan, t!e
la%or-only contractor, $or t!e ri!t$#l claims o$ t!e employees.
/nder t!is set-#p, S#sanI2eesan, as t!e ;la%or-only; contractor, is
deemed an aent o$ t!e principal, Fairland, and t!e law ma*es t!e
principal responsi%le to t!e employees o$ t!e ;la%or-only; contractor
as i$ t!e principal itsel$ directly !ired or employed t!e employees.
Case # 1* @u3an6co Cotton Mills vs C'
FACTS:
It appears $rom t!e records t!at petitioner is allein owners!ip over a
n#m%er o$ properties located in t!e compo#nd and %#ildins o$ ArteB
8evelopment Corporation, w!ic! were erroneo#sly levied #pon %y t!e s!eri$$
o$ t!e -+RC as a conse&#ence o$ t!e decision rendered %y t!e said
Commission in a la%or case. As a conse&#ence o$ t!e erroneo#s and
#nlaw$#l levy o$ t!e properties, t!e petitioner $iled a -otice o$ T!ird Party
Claim wit! t!e +a%or Ar%iter, an A$$idavit o$ Adverse Claim wit! t!e -+RC, a
petition $or certiorari and pro!i%ition wit! t!e RTC o$ Manila all o$ w!ic! were
dismissed $or lac* o$ merit. Petitioner,s s#%se&#ent appeal to t!e -+RC $rom
t!e decision o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter was li*ewise dismissed. It,s appeal to t!e
Co#rt o$ Appeals was li*ewise dismissed. Its motion $or reconsideration was
li*ewise dismissed despite petitioner,s protestations t!at t!e $ilin o$ a
complaint $or accion reinvindicatoria wit! t!e RTC was proper %eca#se it is a
remedy speci$ically ranted to an owner w!ose properties were s#%"ected to
a writ o$ eBec#tion to en$orce a decision rendered in a la%or disp#te in w!ic!
it was not a party.
ISS/0:
2!et!er or not t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals erred in r#lin t!at t!ere was $or#m
s!oppin and on dismissin t!e petitioner,s accion reinvindicatoria on t!e
ro#nd o$ lac* o$ "#risdiction o$ t!e trial co#rt
'0+8:
Anent t!e $irst iss#e, t!ere is no $or#m s!oppin. In t!e case at %ar, t!ere
was no identity o$ parties, ri!ts and ca#ses o$ action and relie$s so#!t.
T!e case %e$ore t!e -+RC w!ere t!e la%or ar%iter iss#ed a la%or disp#te
was %etween ArteB and Samar-Anlo. Petitioner was not a party to t!e case.
T!e only iss#e petitioner raised %e$ore t!e -+RC was w!et!er or not t!e writ
o$ eBec#tion iss#ed %y t!e la%or ar%iter co#ld %e satis$ied aainst t!e
property o$ petitioner, not a party to t!e la%or case.
En t!e second iss#e, a t!ird party w!ose property !as %een levied #pon %y
a s!eri$$ to en$orce a decision aainst a "#dment de%tor is a$$orded wit!
several alternative remedies to protect its interests. T!e t!ird party may avail
!imsel$ o$ alternative remedies c#m#latively, and one will not precl#de t!e
t!ird party $rom availin !imsel$ o$ t!e ot!er alternative remedies in t!e event
!e $ailed in t!e remedy $irst availed o$.
T!#s, a t!ird party may avail !imsel$ o$ t!e $ollowin alternative remedies:
a) File a t!ird party claim wit! t!e s!eri$$ o$ t!e +a%or Ar%iter, and
%) I$ t!e t!ird party claim is denied, t!e t!ird party may appeal t!e denial to
t!e -+RC.
0ven i$ a t!ird party claim was denied, a t!ird party may still $ile a proper
action wit! a competent co#rt to recover owners!ip o$ t!e property illeally
sei.ed %y t!e s!eri$$.
T!e $ilin o$ a t!ird party claim wit! t!e +a%or Ar%iter and t!e -+RC did not
precl#de t!e petitioner $rom $ilin a s#%se&#ent action $or recovery o$
property and damaes wit! t!e Reional Trial Co#rt. And, t!e instit#tion o$
s#c! complaint will not ma*e petitioner #ilty o$ $or#m s!oppin.
T!e power o$ t!e -+RC to eBec#te its "#dments eBtends only to properties
#n&#estiona%ly %elonin to t!e "#dment de%tor.
;T!e eneral r#le t!at no co#rt !as t!e power to inter$ere %y in"#nction wit!
t!e "#dments or decrees o$ anot!er co#rt wit! conc#rrent or coordinate
"#risdiction possessin e&#al power to rant in"#nctive relie$, applies only
w!en no t!ird-party claimant is involved. 2!en a t!ird-party, or a straner to
t!e action, asserts a claim over t!e property levied #pon, t!e claimant may
vindicate !is claim %y an independent action in t!e proper civil co#rt w!ic!
may stop t!e eBec#tion o$ t!e "#dment on property not %elonin to t!e
"#dment de%tor.;
In Consolidated Fan* and Tr#st Corp. v. Co#rt o$ Appeals, it was r#led t!at:
;T!e well-settled doctrine is t!at a :proper levy: is indispensa%le to a valid
sale on eBec#tion. A sale #nless preceded %y a valid levy is void. T!ere$ore,
since t!ere was no s#$$icient levy on t!e eBec#tion in &#estion, t!e private
respondent did not ta*e any title to t!e properties sold t!ere#nder (P).
;A person ot!er t!an t!e "#dment de%tor w!o claims owners!ip or ri!t over
t!e levied properties is not precl#ded, !owever, $rom ta*in ot!er leal
remedies.;
A separate civil action $or recovery o$ owners!ip o$ t!e property wo#ld not
constit#te inter$erence wit! t!e powers or processes o$ t!e Ar%iter and t!e
-+RC w!ic! rendered t!e "#dment to en$orce and eBec#te #pon t!e levied
properties. T!e property levied #pon %ein t!at o$ a straner is not s#%"ect to
levy. T!#s, a separate action $or recovery, #pon a claim and prima#
facie s!owin o$ owners!ip %y t!e petitioner, cannot %e considered as
inter$erence.
Case # 62 'ndo vs. Cam3o
'$0; vs. C'MP;
G.%. $o. 7!4227, Fe%r#ary 1A, 4@11
FACTS:
Pa&#ito G. Ando was t!e president o$ Premier Allied and Contractin
Services, Inc. (PACSI), an independent la%or contractor. Respondents T!ey
$iled a case $or illeal dismissal and some money claims wit! t!e -ational
+a%or Relations Commission (-+RC). T!e +a%or Ar%iter r#led in
respondents, $avor. PACSI and petitioner were directed to pay respondents,
separation pay and t!e award o$ attorney,s $ees.
/pon $inality o$ t!e decision, respondents moved $or its eBec#tion.
To answer $or t!e monetary award, -+RC Actin S!eri$$ iss#ed a -otice o$
Sale on 0Bec#tion o$ Personal Property over t!e property in t!e name o$
JPa&#ito G. Ando B B B married to 0rlinda S. Ando.K, promptin petitioner to
$ile an action $or pro!i%ition and damaes wit! prayer $or t!e iss#ance o$ a
temporary restrainin order (TRE) %e$iore t!e RTC Franc! 7@, Facolod City.
Petitioner claimed t!at t!e property %eloned to !im and !is wi$e, not to t!e
corporation, and, !ence, co#ld not %e s#%"ect o$ t!e eBec#tion sale. Since it
is t!e corporation t!at was t!e "#dment de%tor, eBec#tion s!o#ld %e made
on t!e latter,s properties.
T!e RTC denied t!e prayer $or a TRE, !oldin t!at t!e trial co#rt
!ad no "#risdiction to try and decide t!e case. T!e RTC r#led t!at, p#rs#ant
to t!e )L%! /anual on the 0xecution of 1udment, petitioner,s remedy was
to $ile a t!ird-party claim wit! t!e -+RC S!eri$$.
Petitioner did not $ile a motion $or reconsideration o$ t!e RTC Erder.
Instead, !e $iled a petition $or certiorari #nder R#le A7 %e$ore t!e CA. 'e
contended t!at t!e RTC acted wit!o#t or in eBcess o$ "#risdiction or wit!
rave a%#se o$ discretion amo#ntin to lac* or eBcess o$ "#risdiction in
iss#in t!e Erder. Petitioner ar#ed t!at t!e writ o$ eBec#tion was iss#ed
improvidently or wit!o#t a#t!ority since t!e property to %e levied %eloned to
!im C in !is personal capacity C and !is wi$e. T!e RTC, respondent
contended, co#ld stay t!e eBec#tion o$ a "#dment i$ t!e same was
#n"#st. 'e also contended t!at, p#rs#ant to a r#lin o$ t!is Co#rt, a t!ird
party w!o is not a "#dment creditor may c!oose %etween $ilin a t!ird-party
claim wit! t!e -+RC s!eri$$ or $ilin a separate action wit! t!e co#rts.
ISS/0:
2E- t!e Petitioner can c!oose %etween $ilin a t!ird-party claim wit! t!e
s!eri$$ o$ t!e -+RC or $ilin a separate action.
'0+8:
-E, %#t !is petition in meritorio#s and, "#stice demands t!at t!is Co#rt loo*
%eyond !is proced#ral missteps and rant t!e petition.
T!e Co#rt !as lon reconi.ed t!at re#lar co#rts !ave no "#risdiction to
!ear and decide &#estions w!ic! arise $rom and are incidental to t!e
en$orcement o$ decisions, orders, or awards rendered in la%or cases %y
appropriate o$$icers and tri%#nals o$ t!e 8epartment o$ +a%or and
0mployment.
T!#s, it is, $irst and $oremost, t!e )L%! /anual on the 0xecution
of 1udment t!at overns any &#estion on t!e eBec#tion o$ a "#dment o$
t!at %ody. Petitioner need not loo* $#rt!er t!an t!at. T!e R#les o$ Co#rt
apply only %y analoy or in a s#ppletory c!aracter.
)L%! /anual on the 0xecution of 1udment deals s3ecifically wit! t!ird-
party claims in cases %ro#!t %e$ore t!at %ody. It de$ines a t!ird-party claim
as one w!ere a person, not a party to t!e case, asserts title to or ri!t to t!e
possession o$ t!e property levied #pon.
<46=
It also sets o#t t!e proced#re $or
t!e $ilin o$ a t!ird-party claim, to
wit:
S0CTIE- 4. Proceedins( Q I$ property levied #pon %e
claimed %y any person ot!er t!an t!e losin party or !is
aent, s#c! person s!all ma*e an a$$idavit o$ !is title
t!ereto or ri!t to t!e possession t!ereo$, statin t!e
ro#nds o$ s#c! ri!t or title and s!all $ile t!e same wit!
t!e s!eri$$ and copies t!ereo$ served #pon t!e +a%or
Ar%iter or proper o$$icer iss#in t!e writ and #pon t!e
prevailin party. /pon receipt o$ t!e t!ird party claim, all
proceedins wit! respect to t!e eBec#tion o$ t!e property
s#%"ect o$ t!e t!ird party claim s!all a#tomatically %e
s#spended and t!e +a%or Ar%iter or proper o$$icer iss#in
t!e writ s!all cond#ct a !earin wit! d#e notice to all
parties concerned and resolve t!e validity o$ t!e claim
wit!in ten (1@) wor*in days $rom receipt t!ereo$ and !is
decision is appeala%le to t!e Commission wit!in ten (1@)
wor*in days $rom notice, and t!e Commission s!all
resolve t!e appeal wit!in same period.
T!ere is no do#%t in o#r mind t!at petitioner,s complaint is a t!ird-
party claim wit!in t!e coni.ance o$ t!e -+RC. Petitioner may indeed %e
considered a Jt!ird partyK in relation to the property sub,ect of the execution
vis#2#vis the Labor &rbiter.s decision. T!ere is no &#estion t!at t!e property
%elons to petitioner and !is wi$e, and not to t!e corporation. It can %e said
t!at t!e property %elons to t!e con"#al partners!ip, not to petitioner alone.
T!#s, t!e property %elons to a t!ird party, i(e(, t!e con"#al partners!ip. At
t!e very least, t!e Co#rt can consider t!at petitioner,s wi$e is a t!ird party
wit!in contemplation o$ t!e law.
T!e Co#rt,s prono#ncements in Deltaventures %esources, 'nc( v(
3on( !abato
<47=
are instr#ctive: J 2!atever irre#larities attended t!e
iss#ance an eBec#tion o$ t!e alias writ o$ eBec#tion s!o#ld %e re$erred to t!e
same administrative tri%#nal w!ic! rendered t!e decision. T!is is %eca#se
any co#rt w!ic! iss#ed a writ o$ eBec#tion !as t!e in!erent power, $or t!e
advancement o$ "#stice, to correct errors o$ its ministerial o$$icers and to
control its own processes.K
T!ere is no denyin t!at t!e present controversy arose $rom t!e
complaint $or illeal dismissal. T!e s#%"ect matter o$ petitioner,s complaint is
t!e eBec#tion o$ t!e -+RC decision. 0Bec#tion is an essential part o$ t!e
proceedins %e$ore t!e -+RC. >#risdiction, once ac&#ired, contin#es
#ntil t!e case is $inally terminated,
<4M=
and t!ere can %e no end to t!e
controversy wit!o#t t!e $#ll and proper implementation o$ t!e commission,s
directives.
F#rt!er #nderscorin t!e RTC,s lac* o$ "#risdiction over petitioner,s
complaint is Article 476 o$ t!e +a%or Code, to wit:
ART. 476. ')14)!T'5) P%53'6'T0D. C -o
temporary or permanent in"#nction or restrainin order in
any case involvin or rowin o#t o$ la%or disp#tes s!all
%e iss#ed %y any co#rt or ot!er entity, eBcept as ot!erwise
provided in Articles 41? and 4A6 o$ t!is Code.
T!at said, !owever, we resolve to p#t an end to t!e controversy ri!t
now, considerin t!e lent! o$ time t!at !as passed since t!e levy on t!e
property was made.
Petitioner claims t!at t!e property so#!t to %e levied does not
%elon to PACSI, t!e "#dment de%tor, %#t to !im and !is wi$e. Since !e was
s#ed in a representative capacity, and not in !is personal capacity, t!e
property co#ld not %e made to answer $or t!e "#dment o%liation o$ t!e
corporation.
T!e TCT
<4?=
o$ t!e property %ears o#t t!at, indeed, it %elons to
petitioner and !is wi$e. T!#s, even i$ we consider petitioner as an aent o$
t!e corporation C and, t!ere$ore, not a straner to t!e case C s#c! t!at t!e
provision on t!ird-party claims will not apply to !im, t!e property was
reistered not only in t!e name o$ petitioner %#t also o$ !is wi$e. S!e stands
to lose t!e property s#%"ect o$ eBec#tion wit!o#t ever %ein a party to t!e
case. T!is will %e tantamo#nt to deprivation o$ property wit!o#t d#e process.
Moreover, t!e power o$ t!e -+RC, or t!e co#rts, to eBec#te its
"#dment eBtends only to properties #n&#estiona%ly %elonin to t!e
"#dment de%tor alone.
<4H=
A s!eri$$, t!ere$ore, !as no a#t!ority to attac! t!e
property o$ any person eBcept t!at o$ t!e "#dment de%tor.
<5@=
+i*ewise, t!ere
is no s!owin t!at t!e s!eri$$ ever tried to eBec#te on t!e properties o$ t!e
corporation.

In s#m, w!ile petitioner availed !imsel$ o$ t!e wron remedy to vindicate
!is ri!ts, nonet!eless, "#stice demands t!at t!is Co#rt loo* %eyond !is
proced#ral missteps and rant t!e petition.