The petitioner ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union Members filed a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside a Department of Labor and Employment order dismissing their complaint against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and union officers. The complaint alleged that a special assessment of 11% of salary increases for union expenses was illegal. The public respondent initially affirmed the order against the respondents but later issued an order reversing his decision and dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The petitioners argue this was an abuse of discretion. The court denies the petition, finding the public respondent did not abuse his discretion in reconsidering his initial decision.
The petitioner ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union Members filed a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside a Department of Labor and Employment order dismissing their complaint against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and union officers. The complaint alleged that a special assessment of 11% of salary increases for union expenses was illegal. The public respondent initially affirmed the order against the respondents but later issued an order reversing his decision and dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The petitioners argue this was an abuse of discretion. The court denies the petition, finding the public respondent did not abuse his discretion in reconsidering his initial decision.
The petitioner ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union Members filed a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside a Department of Labor and Employment order dismissing their complaint against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and union officers. The complaint alleged that a special assessment of 11% of salary increases for union expenses was illegal. The public respondent initially affirmed the order against the respondents but later issued an order reversing his decision and dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The petitioners argue this was an abuse of discretion. The court denies the petition, finding the public respondent did not abuse his discretion in reconsidering his initial decision.
ABS CBN SUPERVISORS EMPO!EE UNION MEMBERS, petitioner, vs. ABS CBN BROA"CAS#ING CORP., $ERBER# RIVERA, ABER#O BERBON, CIN"! MUNO%, CESO &AMBAOS, SAVA"OR "E VERA, ARNU'O ACA%AR, &A(E MA"ERA%O, GON CARPIO, OSCAR AN"RI#O, 'RE" GARCIA, CESAR OPE% a)* RUBEN BARRAME"A, respondents. " E C I S I O N PURISIMA, J.+ At bar is a special civil action for Certiorari [1] seeking the reversal of the Orer [!] ate "#l$ %1& 1''! of p#blic responent Depart(ent of )abor an *(plo$(ent +nersecretar$ ,ienvenio *- )ag#es(a [%] in .ase No- N.R / OD / 0 / '1 / 12 3 1%2- 4ro( the recors on han& it can be gathere& that5 On Dece(ber 2& 1'6'& the A,S3.,N S#pervisors *(lo$ees +nion 78the +nion9:& represente b$ responent +nion Officers& an A,S3.,N ,roacasting .orporation 78the .o(pan$9: signe an concl#e a .ollective ,argaining Agree(ent ;ith the follo;ing check3 off provision& to ;it5 8Article XII The [.]o(pan$ agrees to avance to the +nion a s#( e<#ivalent to 11= of the s#( total of all the salar$ increases an signing bon#ses grante to the S#pervisors #ner this collective ,argaining Agree(ent an #pon signing hereof to cover the +nion>s inciental e?penses& incl#ing attorne$>s fees an representation e?penses for its organi@ation an (sic) preparation an con#ct hereof& an s#ch avance shall be e#cte fro( the benefits grante herein as the$ accr#e-9 On Septe(ber 1'& 1''1& Aetitioners [B] file ;ith the ,#rea# of )abor Relations& DO)*3 N.R& C#e@on .it$& a .o(plaint against the +nion Officers [D] an A,S3.,N ,roacasting corporation& pra$ing that (1) the special assess(ent of ten percent 711=: of the s#( total of all salar$ increases an signing bon#ses grante b$ responent .o(pan$ to the (e(bers of the +nion be eclare illegal for fail#re to co(pl$ ;ith the labor .oe& as a(ene& partic#larl$ Article !B1& paragraphs 7g:& 7n:& an 7o:E an in #tter violation of the .onstit#tion an ,$3)a;s of the A,S3.,N S#pervisors *(plo$ees +nionE (2) responent .o(pan$ be orere to s#spen f#rther e#ctions fro( petitioners> salaries for their shares thereof- In their Ans;ers& responent +nion Officers an .o(pan$ pra$e for the is(issal of the .o(plaint for lack of (erit- The$ arg#e that the check3off provision is in accorance ;ith la; as (aForit$ of the +nion (e(bers individually e?ec#te a written authorization giving the +nion officers an the .o(pan$ a blanket a#thorit$ to e#ct s#bFect a(o#nt- On "an#ar$ !1& 1''1& 0e3Arbiter Rasiali .- Ab#la iss#e the follo;ing Orer5 [G] 8HH*R*4OR*& pre(ises consiere& F#g(ent is hereb$ renere5 a: eclaring the special assess(ent of 11= of the s#( total of .,A benefits as illegalE b: orering responents #nion officers to ref#n to the co(plainants an other #nion (e(bers the a(o#nt of five H#nre Tho#san Aesos 7AD11&111-11: avance b$ the responent .o(pan$ as part of the 11= s#( total of .,A benefits ;itho#t #nnecessar$ ela$E c: orering the responent co(pan$ to stop an esist fro( f#rther (aking avances an e#ctions fro( the #nion (e(bers> salaries their share in the avances alrea$ (ae to the #nionE : orering the responent .o(pan$ to re(it irectl$ to the co(plainants an other #nion (e(bers the a(o#nt alrea$ e#cte fro( the #nion (e(bers> salaries as part of their share in the avances alrea$ (ae to the #nion an ;hich it ha kept in tr#st #ring the penenc$ of this caseE an e: irecting the responents #nion officers an responent .o(pan$ to s#b(it report on the co(pliance thereof- SO ORD*R*D-9 On appeal& responent DO)* +nersecretar$ ,ienvenio *- )ag#es(a hane o;n a Decision [2] on "#l$ 1& 1''1& isposing as follo;s5 8HH*R*4OR*& the appeals are hereb$ enie& the Orer of the 0e3Arbiter is affir(e en toto-9 On "#l$ D& 1''1& the aforesai Decision ;as receive b$ the responent +nion Officers an responent .o(pan$- On "#l$ 1%& 1''1& the$ file their Motion for Reconsideration stating inter alia that the <#estione ten percent 711=: special assess(ent is vali p#rs#ant to the r#ling in !an" of the #hili$$ine Islands %&$loyee 'nion A(' vs) *(RC) [6] On "#l$ %1& 1''!& +nersecretar$ ,-*- )ag#es(a iss#e an Orer ['] E resolving& th#s5 IHH*R*4OR*& the Decision ate 11 "#l$ 1''1 is hereb$ S*T ASID*- In lie# thereof& a ne; one is hereb$ entere DIS0ISSINJ the .o(plaintKAetition for lack of (erit-I Hence& the present petition seeking to ann#l an set asie the above3cite Orer of p#blic responent +nersecretar$ ,-*- )ag#es(a& for being allegel$ tainte ;ith grave ab#se of iscretion a(o#nting to lack of F#risiction- Di the p#blic responent act ;ith grave ab#se of iscretion in iss#ing the challenge Orer reversing his o;n Decision of "#l$ 1& 1''1L S#ch is the sole iss#e posite&;hich ;e resolve in the negative- The petition is #n(eritorio#s- Aetitioners clai( [11] that the Decision of the Secretar$ of )abor an *(plo$(ent ate "#l$ 1& 1''1& affir(ing in toto the Orer of 0e3Arbiter Rasiali Ab#llah ate "an#ar$ %1& 1''1& cannot be a s#bFect of a (otion for reconsieration beca#se it is final an #nappealable p#rs#ant to Section 6& R#le VIII& ,ook V of the O(nib#s R#le I(ple(enting the )abor .oe- It is f#rther arg#e that the onl$ re(e$ of the responent +nion OfficersM is to file a petition for certiorari ;ith this .o#rt- Section 6& R#le VIII& ,ook V of the O(nib#s R#les I(ple(enting the )abor .oe& provies5 IThe Secretar$ shall have fifteen 71D: calenar a$s ;ithin ;hich to ecie the appeal fro( receipt of the recors of the case- The ecision of the Secretar$ shall be final and ina$$eala+le-I [+nerscoring s#pplie]- 7.o((ent& p- 111: The aforecite provision cannot be constr#e to (ean that the Decision of the p#blic responent cannot be reconsiere since the sa(e is revie;able b$ writ of certiorari #ner R#le GD of the R#les of .o#rt- As a r#le& the la; re<#ires a &otion for reconsideration to enable the p#blic responent to correct his (istakes& if an$- In #earl ,) !uc" -oundation Inc) vs) *(RC [11] this .o#rt hel5 IHence& the onl$ ;a$ b$ ;hich a labor case (a$ reach the S#pre(e .o#rt is thro#gh a petition for certiorari #ner R#le GD of the R#les of .o#rt alleging lack or e?cess of F#risiction or grave ab#se of iscretion- S#ch petition (a$ be file ;ithin a reasonable ti(e fro( receipt of the resol#tion en$ing the &otion for reconsideration of the N)R. ecision-I [+nerscoringE s#pplie]- .learl$& before a petition for certiorari #ner R#le GD of the R#les of .o#rt (a$ be availe of& the filing of a (otion for reconsieration is a conition sine .ua non to affor an opport#nit$ for the correction of the error or (istake co(plaine of- So also& consiering that a ecision of the Secretar$ of )abor is s#bFect to F#icial revie; onl$ thro#gh a special civil action of certiorari an& as a r#le& cannot be resorte to ;itho#t the aggrieve part$ having e?ha#ste a(inistrative re(eies thro#gh a &otion for reconsideration& the aggrieve part$& (#st be allo;e to (ove for a reconsieration of the sa(e so that he can bring a special civil action for certiorari before the S#pre(e .o#rt- [1!] 4#rther(ore& it appears that the petitioners file ;ith the p#blic responent a Motion for %arly Resolution [1%] ate "#ne !B& 1''!- Averring that private responentsM Motion for Reconsideration i not contain s#bstantial fact#al or legal gro#ns for the reversal of s#bFect ecision- .onse<#entl$& petitioners are no; esto$$ed fro( raising the iss#e so#ght for resol#tion- In Alfredo Mar.uez vs) ,ecretary of (a+or& [1B] the .o#rt sai5 I??? The active participation of the part$ against ;ho( the action ;as bro#ght& co#ple ;ith his fail#re to obFect to the F#risiction of the co#rt or <#asi3F#icial bo$ ;here the action is pening& is tanta(o#nt to an invocation of that F#risiction an a ;illingness to abie b$ the resol#tion of the case an ;ill bar sai part$ fro( later on i(p#gning the co#rt or bo$Ms F#risiction-I Hhat is (ore& it ;as onl$ ;hen the p#blic responents iss#e the Orer averse to the( that the petitioners raise the <#estion for the first ti(e before this .o#rt- Obvio#sl$& it is a patent aftertho#ght ;hich (#st be abhorre- Aetitioners also arg#e that the check3off provision in <#estion is illegal beca#se it ;as never s#b(itte for consieration an approval to Iall the (e(bers at a general (e(bership (eeting calle for the p#rposeIE an f#rther allege that the for(alities (anate b$ Art- !B1& paragraphs 7n: an 7o: of the )abor .oe& as a(ene& ;ere not co(plie ;ith- IA check3off is a process or evice ;hereb$ the e(plo$er& on agree&ent ;ith the +nion& recogni@e as the proper bargaining representative& or on $rior authorization fro( its e(plo$ees& e#cts #nion #es or agenc$ fees fro( the latterMs ;ages an re(its the( irectl$ to the #nion-I [1D] Its esirabilit$ in a labor organi@ation is <#ite evient- It is ass#re thereb$ of contin#o#s f#ning- As this .o#rt has ackno;lege& the s$ste( of check3off is pri(aril$ for the benefit of the +nion an onl$ inirectl$& for the inivi#al e(plo$ees- The legal basis of check3off is fo#n in stat#tes or in contracts- [1G] The stat#tor$ li(itations on check3offs are fo#n in Article !B1& .hapter II& Title IV& ,ook 4ive of the )abor .oe& ;hich reas5 IRights and conditions of &e&+ershi$ in a la+or organization- 3 The follo;ing are the rights an conitions of (e(bership in a labor organi@ation5 ? ? ? 7g: No officer& agent& (e(ber of a labor organi@ation shall collect an$ fees& #es& or other contrib#tions in its behalf or (ake an$ isb#rse(ent of its (one$ or f#ns unless he is duly authorized $ursuant to its constitution and +y/laws- ? ? ? 7n: No special assess(ent or other e?traorinar$ fees (a$ be levie #pon the (e(bers of a labor organi@ation unless authorized +y a written resolution of a &a0ority of all the &e&+ers of a general &e&+ershi$ &eeting duly called for the $ur$ose- The secretar$ of the organi@ation shall recor the (in#tes of the (eeting incl#ing the list of all (e(bers present& the votes cast& the p#rpose of the special assess(ent or fees an the recipient of s#ch assess(ent or fees- The recor shall be atteste to b$ the presient- 7o: Other than for (anator$ activities #ner the .oe& no special assess(ents& attorne$Ms fees& negotiation fees or an$ other e?traorinar$ fees (a$ be checke off fro( an$ a(o#nt #e to an e(plo$ee ;ith an individual written authorization #l$ signe b$ the e(plo$ee- The a#thori@ation sho#l specificall$ state the a(o#nt& p#rpose an beneficiar$ of the e#ctions- [+nerscoringE s#pplie] Article !B1 of the )abor .oe& as a(ene& (#st be rea in relation to Article !!!& paragraph 7b: of the sa(e la;& ;hich states5 INo attorne$Ms fees& negotiation fees or si(ilar charges of an$ kin arising fro( collective bargaining negotiations or concl#sion of the collective agree(ent shall be i(pose on an$ inivi#al (e(ber of the contracting #nion5#rovided however that attorney1s fees &ay +e charged against union funds in an a&ount to +e agreed u$on +y the $arties- An$ contract& agree(ent or arrange(ent of an$ sort to the contrar$ shall be n#ll an voi-I [+nerscoringE s#pplie] An this co#rt el#ciate the obFect an i(port of the sai provision of la; in !an" of #hili$$ine Islands %&$loyees 'nion 3 Association (a+or 'nion (!#I%'/A(') vs) *ational (a+or Relations Co&&ission5 [12] IThe .o#rt reas the afore3cite provision 7Article 222 2+3 of the (a+or Code: as prohibiting the pa$(ent of attorne$Ms fees onl$ ;hen it is effecte thro#gh force contrib#tions fro( the ;orkers fro( their own funds as isting#ishe fro( the union funds- ???I Noticeabl$& Article !B1 speaks of three 7%: re<#isites that (#st be co(plie ;ith in orer that the special assess(ent for +nionMs inciental e?penses& attorne$Ms fees an representation e?penses& as stip#late in Article NII of the .,A& be vali an #phel na(el$5 1) a#thori@ation b$ a ;ritten resol#tion of the (aForit$ of all the (e(bers at the general (e(bership (eeting #l$ calle for the p#rposeE (2) secretar$Ms recor of the (in#tes of the (eetingE an (4) inivi#al ;ritten a#thori@ation for check3off #l$ signe b$ the e(plo$ee concerne- After a thoro#gh revie; of the recors on han& ;e fin that the three 7%: re<#isites for the valiit$ of the ten percent 711=: special assess(ent for +nionMs inciental e?penses& attorne$Ms fees an representation e?penses ;ere (et- It can be gleane that on "#l$ 1B& 1'6'& the A,S3.,N S#pervisors *(plo$ee +nion hel its general &eeting& ;hereat it ;as agree that a ten percent 711=: special assess(ent fro( the total econo(ic package #e to ever$ (e(ber ;o#l be checke3off to cover e?penses for negotiation& other (iscellaneo#s e?penses an attorne$Ms fees- The &inutes of the sai (eeting ;ere recore b$ the +nionMs Secretar$& 0a- .ar(ina 0- 0#no@& an note b$ its Aresient& Herbert Rivera- [16] On 0a$ !B& 1''1& sai +nion hel its 5eneral Me&+ershi$ Meeting& ;herein (aForit$ of the (e(bers agree that Iin as (#ch as the +nion ha alrea$ pai Att$- A- Aasc#al the a(o#nt of AD11&111-11& the sa(e (#st be share b$ all the (e(bers #ntil this is f#ll$ li<#iate-I [1'] *ight$3five 76D: (e(bers of the sa(e +nion e?ec#te individual written authorizations for check3off& th#s5 ITo;ars that en& I hereb$ a#thori@e the 0anage(ent anKor .ashier of A,S3.,N ,ROAD.ASTINJ .ORAORATION to e#ct fro( ($ salar$ the s#( of A%1-11 per (onth as ($ reg#lar #nion #es an sai 0anage(ent anKor .ashier are f#rther a#thori@e 7sic: to e#ct a s#( e<#ivalent to 11= of all an ;hatever benefits that ;ill beco(e #e to (e #ner the .O))*.TIV* ,ARJAININJ AJR**0*NT 7.,A: that (a$ be agree #pon b$ the +NION an 0ANAJ*0*NT an to appl$ the sai s#( to the avance that 0anage(ent ;ill (ake to o#r +nion for inciental e?penses s#ch as attorne$Ms fees& representations an other (iscellaneo#s e?penses p#rs#ant to Article NII of the propose .,A-I [!1] Recors o not inicate that the aforesai check3off a#thori@ations ;ere e?ec#te b$ the eight$3five 76D: +nion (e(bers #ner the infl#ence of force or co(p#lsion- There is then& the pres#(ption that s#ch check3off a#thori@ations ;ere e?ec#te vol#ntaril$ b$ the signatories thereto- Aetitioner>s contention that the a(o#nt to be e#cte is uncertain [!1] is not pers#asive beca#se the check3off a#thori@ation clearl$ state that the s#( to be e#cte is e<#ivalent to ten percent 711=: of all an ;hatever benefits (a$ accr#e #ner the .,A- In other ;ors& altho#gh the a(o#nt is not fi?e& it is eter(inable- Aetitioners f#rther conten that Article !B1 7n: of the )abor .oe& as a(ene& on special assess(ents& conte(plates a general (eeting after the concl#sion of the collective bargaining agree(ent- S#bFect Article oes not state that the general (e(bership (eeting sho#l be calle after the concl#sion of a collective bargaining agree(ent- *ven granting e6 gratia argu&enti that the general (eeting sho#l be helafter the concl#sion of the .,A& s#ch re<#ire(ent ;as co(plie ;ith since the 0a$ !B& 1''1 Jeneral 0e(bership 0eeting ;as hel after the concl#sion of the .ollective ,argaining Agree(ent& ;hich ;as signe an concl#e on Dece(ber 2& 1'6'- .onsiering that the three re<#isites afforesai for the valiit$ of a special assess(ent ;ere observe or (et& ;e #phol the valiit$ of the ten percent 711=: special assess(ent a#thori@e in Article NII of the .,A- He also conc#r in the fining b$ p#blic responent that the ,ank of the Ahilippine Islans *(plo$ees +nion / A)+ vs- N)R. [!!] is apposite in this case- In ,AI*+3A)+& the petitioners& i(p#gne the Orer of the N)R.& holing that the valiit$ of the five percent 7D=: special assess(ent for attorne$>s fees is contrar$ to Article !!!& paragraph 7b: of the )abor .oe& as a(ene- The co#rt ratiocinate& th#s5 8The .o#rt reas the aforecite provision as prohibiting the pa$(ent of attorne$>s fees onl$ ;hen it is effecte thro#gh forced contributions from the workers from their own funds a isting#ishe fro( the union funds- The p#rpose of the provision is to prevent i(position on the ;orkers of the #t$ to inivi#all$ contrib#te their respective shares in the fee to be pai the attorne$ for his services on behalf of the #nion in its negotiations ;ith the (anage(ent- ???9 [+nerscoring s#pplie] Ho;ever& the p#blic responent overlooke the fact that in the sai case& the e#ction of the stip#late five percent 7D=: of the total econo(ic benefits #ner the ne; collective bargaining agree(ent ;as applie onl$ to ;orkers ;ho gave their individual signed authorizations- The .o#rt e?plaine5 8??? An significantl$& the a#thori@e e#ction affecte onl$ the ;orkers ;ho aopte an signe the resol#tion an ;ho ;ere the onl$ ones fro( ;hose benefits the e#ctions ;ere (ae b$ ,AI- *o si&ilar deductions were ta"en fro& the other wor"ers who did not sign the resolution and so were not +ound +y it-9 [+nerscoringE s#pplie] Hhile the co#rt also fins (erit in the fining b$ the p#blic responents that #alacol vs) -errer/Calle0a [!%] is inapropos in the case #ner scr#tin$& it oes not s#bscribe to p#blic responent>s reasoning / that #alacolsho#l not be retroactivel$ applie to the present case in the interest of F#stice& e<#it$ an fairpla$- [!B] The inapplicabilit$ of #alacol lies in the fact that it has a ifferent fact#al (ilie# fro( the present case- In #alacol& the check3off a#thori@ation ;as eclare invali because (aForit$ of the +nion (e(bers ha ;ithra;n their inivi#al a#thori@ations& to ;it5 8Aaragraph 7o: on the other han re<#ires an inivi#al ;ritten a#thori@ation #l$ signe b$ ever$ e(plo$ee in orer that special assess(ent (a$be valil$ check3off- *ven ass#(ing that the special assess(ent ;as valil$ levie p#rs#ant to paragraph 7n:& an granting that inivi#al ;ritten a#thori@ations ;ere obtaine b$ the +nion& nevertheless there can be no vali check3off consiering that the (aForit$ of the +nion (e(bers ha alrea$ ;ithra;n their inivi#al a#thori@ations- A withdrawal of individual authorization is e.uivalent to no authorization at all-9 ??? [+nerscoringE s#pplie] In this case& the (aForit$ of the +nion (e(bers gave their inivi#al ;ritten check3off a#thori@ations for the ten percent 711=: special assess(ent- An the$ have never ;ithra; their inivi#al ;ritten a#thori@ations for check3off- There is th#s cogent reason to #phol the assaile Orer& it appearing fro( the recors of the case that t;ent$ 7!1: [!D] of the fort$3t;o 7B!: petitioners e?ec#te as .o(pro(ise Agree(ent [!G] ratif$ing the controversial check3off provision in the .,A- Are(ises st#iel$ consiere& ;e are of the irresistable concl#sion an& so fin& that the r#ling in !#I%'/A(' vs) *(RC that 71: the prohibition against attorne$>s fees in Article !!!& paragraph 7b: of the )abor .oe applies onl$ ;hen the pa$(ent of attorne$>s fees is effecte thro#gh force contrib#tions fro( the ;orkersE an 7!: that no e#ctions (#st be taken fro( the ;orkers ;ho i not sign the check3off a#thori@ation& applies to the case #ner consieration- ,$ERE'ORE& the assaile Orer& ate "#l$ %1& 1''!& of DO)* +nersecretar$ ,-*- )ag#es(a is A44IR0*D e?cept that no e#ctions shall be taken fro( the ;orkers ;ho i not give their inivi#al ;ritten check3off a#thori@ation- No prono#nce(ent as to costs- SO OR"ERE". Ro&ero (Chair&an) 7itug #angani+an an 5onzaga/Reyes 88) conc#r-
EN BANC
&UANI#O A. GARCIA a)* ABER#O &. "UMAGO, P-././o)-r0,
Aetitioners "#anito A- Jarcia an Alberto "- D#(ago assail the Dece(ber D& !11% Decision an April 1G& !11B Resol#tion of the .o#rt of Appeals [1] in .A3J-R- SA No- G'DB1 ;hich grante the petition for certiorari of responent& Ahilippine Airlines& Inc- 7AA):& an enie petitioners> 0otion for Reconsieration& respectivel$- The ispositive portion of the assaile Decision reas5
HH*R*4OR*& pre(ises consiere an in vie; of the foregoing& the instant petition is hereb$ JIV*N D+* .O+RS*- The assaile Nove(ber !G& !111 Resol#tion as ;ell as the "an#ar$ !6& !11! Resol#tion of p#blic responent National )abor Relations .o((ission [N)R.] is hereb$ ANN+))*D an S*T ASID* for having been iss#e ;ith grave ab#se of iscretion a(o#nting to lack or e?cess of F#risiction- .onse<#entl$& the Hrit of *?ec#tion an the Notice of Jarnish(ent iss#e b$ the )abor Arbiter are hereb$ like;ise ANN+))*D an S*T ASID*-
SO ORD*R*D- [!]
The case ste((e fro( the a(inistrative charge file b$ AA) against its e(plo$ees3 herein petitioners [%] after the$ ;ere allegel$ ca#ght in the act of sniffing shab# ;hen a tea( of co(pan$ sec#rit$ personnel an la; enforcers raie the AA) Technical .enter>s Toolroo( Section on "#l$ !B& 1''D-
After #e notice& AA) is(isse petitioners on October '& 1''D for transgressing the AA) .oe of Discipline& [B] pro(pting the( to file a co(plaint for illegal is(issal an a(ages ;hich ;as& b$ Decision of "an#ar$ 11& 1'''& [D] resolve b$ the )abor Arbiter in their favor& th#s orering AA) to& inter alia i((eiatel$ co(pl$ ;ith the reinstate(ent aspect of the ecision-
Arior to the pro(#lgation of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision& the Sec#rities an *?change .o((ission 7S*.: place AA) 7hereafter referre to as responent:& ;hich ;as s#ffering fro( severe financial losses& #ner an Interi( Rehabilitation Receiver& ;ho ;as s#bse<#entl$ replace b$ a Aer(anent Rehabilitation Receiver on "#ne 2& 1'''-
4ro( the )abor Arbiter>s ecision& responent appeale to the N)R. ;hich& b$ Resol#tion of "an#ar$ %1& !111& reverse sai ecision an is(isse petitioners> co(plaint for lack of (erit- [G]
Aetitioners> 0otion for Reconsieration ;as enie b$ Resol#tion of April !6& !111 an *ntr$ of "#g(ent ;as iss#e on "#l$ 1%& !111- [2]
S#bse<#entl$ or on October D& !111& the )abor Arbiter iss#e a Hrit of *?ec#tion 7Hrit: respecting the reinstate(ent aspect of his "an#ar$ 11& 1''' Decision& an onOctober !D& !111& he iss#e a Notice of Jarnish(ent 7Notice:- Responent there#pon (ove to <#ash the Hrit an to lift the Notice ;hile petitioners (ove to release the garnishe a(o#nt-
In a relate (ove& responent file an +rgent Aetition for InF#nction ;ith the N)R. ;hich& b$ Resol#tions of Nove(ber !G& !111 an "an#ar$ !6& !11!& affir(e the valiit$ of the Hrit an the Notice iss#e b$ the )abor Arbiter +ut s#spene an referre the action to the Rehabilitation Receiver for appropriate action-
Responent elevate the (atter to the appellate co#rt ;hich iss#e the herein challenge Decision an Resol#tion n#llif$ing the N)R. Resol#tions on t;o gro#ns& essentiall$ espo#sing that5 617 a s#bse<#ent fining of a vali is(issal re(oves the basis for i(ple(enting the reinstate(ent aspect of a labor arbiter>s ecision 7the first gro#n:& an 687 the i(possibilit$ to co(pl$ ;ith the reinstate(ent orer #e to corporate rehabilitation provies a reasonable F#stification for the fail#re to e?ercise the options #ner Article !!% of the )abor .oe 7the secon gro#n:-
,$ Decision of A#g#st !'& !112& this .o#rt AARTIA))O JRANT*D the present petition an effectivel$ reinstate the N)R. Resol#tions insofar as it s#spene the proceeings& viz5
Since petitioners> clai( against AA) is a (one$ clai( for their ;ages #ring the penenc$ of AA)>s appeal to the N)R.& the sa(e sho#l have been s#spene pening the rehabilitation proceeings- The )abor Arbiter& the N)R.& as ;ell as the .o#rt of Appeals sho#l have abstaine fro( resolving petitioners> case for illegal is(issal an sho#l instea have irecte the( to loge their clai( before AA)>s receiver-
Ho;ever& to still re<#ire petitioners at this ti(e to re3file their labor clai( against AA) #ner pec#liar circ#(stances of the case/ that their is(issal ;as event#all$ hel vali ;ith onl$ the (atter of reinstate(ent pening appeal being the iss#e/ this .o#rt ee(s it legall$ e?peient to s#spen the proceeings in this case-
HH*R*4OR*& the instant petition is AARTIA))O JRANT*D in that the instant proceeings herein are S+SA*ND*D until further notice fro& this Court- Accoringl$& responent Ahilippine Airlines& Inc- is hereb$ DIR*.T*D to <#arterl$ #pate the .o#rt as to the stat#s of its ongoing rehabilitation- No costs-
SO ORD*R*D- [6] 7Italics in the originalE #nerscoring s#pplie:
,$ 0anifestation an .o(pliance of October %1& !112& responent infor(e the .o#rt that the S*.& b$ Orer of Septe(ber !6& !112& grante its re<#est to e?it fro( rehabilitation proceeings- [']
In vie; of the ter(ination of the rehabilitation proceeings& the .o#rt no; procees to resolve the re(aining iss#e for consieration& ;hich is 9h-.h-r 4-././o)-r0 :a; co<<-c. .h-/r 9a=-0 *3r/)= .h- 4-r/o* >-.9--) .h- a>or Ar>/.-r?0 or*-r o@ r-/)0.a.-:-). 4-)*/)= a44-a< a)* .h- NRC *-c/0/o) o2-r.3r)/)= .ha. o@ .h- a>or Ar>/.-r, )o9 .ha. r-04o)*-). ha0 -A/.-* @ro: r-ha>/</.a./o) 4roc--*/)=0.
Amplification of the First Ground
The appellate co#rt co#nte on as its first gro#n the vie; that a s#bse<#ent fining of a vali is(issal re(oves the basis for i(ple(enting the reinstate(ent aspect of a labor arbiter>s ecision-
On this score& the .o#rt>s attention is ra;n to see(ingl$ ivergent ecisions concerning reinstate(ent pening appeal or& partic#larl$& the o4./o) o@ 4a;ro<< r-/)0.a.-:-).- On the one han is the F#rispr#ential tren as e?po#ne in a line of cases incl#ing Air #hili$$ines Cor$) v) 9a&ora [11] ;hile on the other is the recent case of5enuino v) *ational (a+or Relations Co&&ission- [11] At the core of the see(ing ivergence is the application of paragraph % of Article !!% of the )abor .oe ;hich reas5
In an$ event& the ecision of the )abor Arbiter reinstating a is(isse or separate e(plo$ee& insofar as the r-/)0.a.-:-). a04-c. is concerne& shall /::-*/a.-<; >- -A-c3.or;, 4-)*/)= a44-a<- The e(plo$ee shall either be a(itte back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or separation or& at the option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reinstate in the pa$roll- The posting of a bon b$ the e(plo$er shall not sta$ the e?ec#tion for reinstate(ent provie herein- 7*(phasis an #nerscoring s#pplie:
The vie; as (aintaine in a n#(ber of cases is that5
? ? ? [E]2-) /@ .h- or*-r o@ r-/)0.a.-:-). o@ .h- a>or Ar>/.-r /0 r-2-r0-* o) a44-a<, /. /0 o></=a.or; o) .h- 4ar. o@ .h- -:4<o;-r .o r-/)0.a.- a)* 4a; .h- 9a=-0 o@ .h- */0:/00-* -:4<o;-- *3r/)= .h- 4-r/o* o@ a44-a< 3)./< r-2-r0a< >; .h- h/=h-r co3r.- On the other han& if the e(plo$ee has been reinstate #ring the appeal perio an s#ch reinstate(ent orer is reverse ;ith finalit$& the e(plo$ee is not re<#ire to rei(b#rse ;hatever salar$ he receive for he is entitle to s#ch& (ore so if he act#all$ renere services #ring the perio- [1!] 7*(phasis in the originalE italics an #nerscoring s#pplie:
In other ;ors& a is(isse e(plo$ee ;hose case ;as favorabl$ ecie b$ the )abor Arbiter is entitle to receive ;ages pening appeal #pon reinstate(ent& ;hich is i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$- +nless there is a restraining orer& it is (inisterial #pon the )abor Arbiter to i(ple(ent the orer of reinstate(ent an it is (anator$ on the e(plo$er to co(pl$ there;ith- [1%]
The opposite vie; is artic#late in 5enuino ;hich states5
If the ecision of the labor arbiter is later reverse on appeal #pon the fining that the gro#n for is(issal is vali& then .h- -:4<o;-r ha0 .h- r/=h. .o r-B3/r- .h- */0:/00-* -:4<o;-- on payroll reinstatement .o r-@3)* .h- 0a<ar/-0 0Ch- r-c-/2-* ;hile the case ;as pening appeal& or it can be e#cte fro( the accr#e benefits that the is(isse e(plo$ee ;as entitle to receive fro( hisKher e(plo$er #ner e?isting la;s& collective bargaining agree(ent provisions& an co(pan$ practices- Ho;ever& if the e(plo$ee ;as reinstate to ;ork #ring the penenc$ of the appeal& then the e(plo$ee is entitle to the co(pensation receive for act#al services renere ;itho#t nee of ref#n-
.onsiering that Jen#ino ;as not reinstate to ;ork or place on pa$roll reinstate(ent& an her is(issal is base on a F#st ca#se& then she is not entitle to be pai the salaries state in ite( no- % of the fallo of the Septe(ber %& 1''B N)R. Decision- [1B] 7*(phasis& italics an #nerscoring s#pplie:
It has th#s been avance that there is no point in releasing the ;ages to petitioners since their is(issal ;as fo#n to be vali& an to o so ;o#l constit#te #nF#st enrich(ent-
Arior to 5enuino& there ha been no kno;n si(ilar case containing a ispositive portion ;here the e(plo$ee ;as re<#ire to ref#n the salaries receive on pa$roll reinstate(ent- In fact& in a catena of cases& [1D] the .o#rt i not orer the ref#n of salaries garnishe or receive b$ pa$roll3reinstate e(plo$ees espite a s#bse<#ent reversal of the reinstate(ent orer-
The earth of a#thorit$ s#pporting 5enuino is not iffic#lt to fatho( for it ;o#l other;ise rener in#tile the rationale of reinstate(ent pening appeal-
? ? ? [T]he la; itself has lai o;n a co(passionate polic$ ;hich& once (ore& vivifies an enhances the provisions of the 1'62 .onstit#tion on labor an the ;orking (an-
? ? ? ?
These #ties an responsibilities of the State are i(pose not so (#ch to e?press s$(path$ for the ;orking(an as to forcef#ll$ an (eaningf#ll$ #nerscore labor as a pri(ar$ social an econo(ic force& ;hich the .onstit#tion also e?pressl$ affir(s ;ith e<#al intensit$- )abor is an inispensable partner for the nationMs progress an stabilit$-
? ? ? ?
? ? ? In short& ;ith respect to ecisions reinstating e(plo$ees& the la; itself has eter(ine a s#fficientl$ over;hel(ing reason for its e?ec#tion pening appeal-
? ? ? ?
? ? ? Then& b$ an p#rs#ant to the sa(e po;er 7police po;er:& the State (a$ a#thori@e an i((eiate i(ple(entation& pening appeal& of a ecision reinstating a is(isse or separate e(plo$ee since that saving act is esigne to stop& altho#gh te(poraril$ since the appeal (a$ be ecie in favor of the appellant& a contin#ing threat or anger to the s#rvival or even the life of the is(isse or separate e(plo$ee an his fa(il$- [1G]
#h- 0oc/a< D30./c- 4r/)c/4<-0 o@ <a>or <a9 o3.9-/=h or r-)*-r /)a44</ca><- .h- c/2/< <a9 *oc.r/)- o@ 3)D30. -)r/ch:-). espo#se b$ "#stice Aresbitero Velasco& "r- in his Separate Opinion- The constit#tional an stat#tor$ precepts portra$ the other;ise 8#nF#st9 sit#ation as a conition afforing f#ll protection to labor-
*ven o#tsie the theoretical trappings of the isc#ssion an into the (#nane realities of h#(an e?perience& the 8ref#n octrine9 easil$ e(onstrates ho; a favorable ecision b$ the )abor Arbiter co#l har(& (ore than help& a is(isse e(plo$ee- The e(plo$ee& to (ake both ens (eet& ;o#l necessaril$ have to #se #p the salaries receive #ring the penenc$ of the appeal& onl$ to en #p having to ref#n the s#( in case of a final #nfavorable ecision- It is (irage of a stop3gap leaing the e(plo$ee to a risk$ cliff of insolvenc$-
Avisabl$& the s#( is better left #nspent- It beco(es (ore logical an practical for the e(plo$ee to ref#se pa$roll reinstate(ent an si(pl$ fin ;ork else;here in the interi(& if an$ is available- Notabl$& the option of pa$roll reinstate(ent belongs to the e(plo$er& even if the e(plo$ee is able an raring to ret#rn to ;ork- Arior to 5enuino& it is #nthinkable for one to ref#se pa$roll reinstate(ent- In the face of the gri( possibilities& the rise of concerne e(plo$ees eclining pa$roll reinstate(ent is on the hori@on-
4#rther& the 5enuino r#ling not onl$ isregars the social F#stice principles behin the r#le& b#t also instit#tes a sche(e #n#l$ favorable to (anage(ent- +ner s#ch sche(e& the salaries ispense $endente lite (erel$ serve as a bon poste in install(ent b$ the e(plo$er- 4or in the event of a reversal of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision orering reinstate(ent& the e(plo$er gets back the sa(e a(o#nt ;itho#t having to spen orinaril$ for bon pre(i#(s- This circ#(vents& if not irectl$ contraicts& the proscription that the 8posting of a bon [even a cash bon] b$ the e(plo$er shall not sta$ the e?ec#tion for reinstate(ent-9 [12]
In pla$ing o;n the stra$ post#re in 5enuino re<#iring the is(isse e(plo$ee on pa$roll reinstate(ent to ref#n the salaries in case a final ecision #phols the valiit$ of the is(issal& the .o#rt realigns the proper co#rse of the prevailing octrine on reinstate(ent pening appeal vis3P3vis the effect of a reversal on appeal-
Responent insists that ;ith the reversal of the )abor Arbiter>s Decision& there is no (ore basis to enforce the reinstate(ent aspect of the sai ecision- In his Separate Opinion& "#stice Aresbitero Velasco& "r- s#pports this arg#(ent an fins the prevailing octrine in Air #hili$$ines an allie cases inapplicable beca#se& #nlike the present case& the ;rit of e?ec#tion therein ;as sec#re prior to the reversal of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision-
The proposition is ten#o#s- -irst& the (atter is treate as a (ere race against ti(e- The isc#ssion stoppe there ;itho#t consiering the ca#se of the ela$- ,econd& it re<#ires the iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion espite the i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$ nat#re of the reinstate(ent aspect of the ecision- In #ioneer :e6turing Cor$) v) *(RC [16] ;hich ;as cite in #anuncillo v) CA# #hili$$ines Inc)& [1'] the .o#rt observe5
? ? ? The provision of Article !!% is clear that an a;ar [b$ the )abor Arbiter] for reinstate(ent shall +e i&&ediately e6ecutory even $ending a$$eal and the $osting of a +ond +y the e&$loyer shall not stay the e6ecution for reinstate&ent- The legislative intent is <#ite obvio#s& i-e-& to (ake an a;ar of reinstate(ent i((eiatel$ enforceable& even pening appeal- #o r-B3/r- .h- a44</ca./o) @or a)* /003a)c- o@ a 9r/. o@ -A-c3./o) as prere<#isites for the e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent a;ar 9o3<* c-r.a/)<; >-.ra; a)* r3) co3).-r .o .h- 2-r; o>D-c. a)* /).-). o@ Ar./c<- 88E& i-e-& the i((eiate e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent orer- The reason is si(ple- An application for a ;rit of e?ec#tion an its iss#ance co#l be ela$e for n#(ero#s reasons- A (ere contin#ance or postpone(ent of a sche#le hearing& for instance& or an inaction on the part of the )abor Arbiter or the N)R. co#l easil$ ela$ the iss#ance of the ;rit thereb$ setting at na#ght the strict (anate an noble p#rpose envisione b$ Article !!%- In other ;ors& if the re<#ire(ents of Article !!B [incl#ing the iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion] ;ere to govern& as ;e so eclare in Maranaw& then the e?ec#tor$ nat#re of a reinstate(ent orer or a;ar conte(plate b$ Article !!% ;ill be #n#l$ circ#(scribe an renere ineffect#al- In enacting the la;& the legislat#re is pres#(e to have oraine a vali an sensible la;& one ;hich operates no f#rther than (a$ be necessar$ to achieve its specific p#rpose- Stat#tes& as a r#le& are to be constr#e in the light of the p#rpose to be achieve an the evil so#ght to be re(eie- ? ? ? In intro#cing a ne; r#le on the reinstate(ent aspect of a labor ecision #ner Rep#blic Act No- G21D& .ongress sho#l not be consiere to be in#lging in (ere se(antic e?ercise- ? ? ? [!1] 7Italics in the originalE e(phasis an #nerscoring s#pplie:
The .o#rt reaffir(s the prevailing principle that even if the orer of reinstate(ent of the )abor Arbiter is reverse on appeal& it is obligator$ on the part of the e(plo$er to reinstate an pa$ the ;ages of the is(isse e(plo$ee #ring the perio of appeal #ntil reversal b$ the higher co#rt- [!1] It settles the vie; that the )abor ArbiterMs orer of reinstate(ent is i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$ an the e(plo$er has to either re3a(it the( to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to their is(issal& or to reinstate the( in the pa$roll& an that failing to e?ercise the options in the alternative& e(plo$er (#st pa$ the e(plo$ee>s salaries- [!!]
Amplification of the Second Ground
The re(aining iss#e& nonetheless& is resolve in the negative on the strength of the secon gro#n relie #pon b$ the appellate co#rt in the assaile iss#ances- The .o#rt s#stains the appellate co#rt>s fining that the pec#liar preica(ent of a corporate rehabilitation renere it i(possible for responent to e?ercise its option #ner the circ#(stances-
The spirit of the r#le on reinstate(ent pening appeal ani(ates the proceeings once the )abor Arbiter iss#es the ecision containing an orer of reinstate(ent- The i((eiac$ of its e?ec#tion nees no f#rther elaboration- Reinstate(ent pening appeal necessitates its i((eiate e?ec#tion #ring the penenc$ of the appeal& if the la; is to serve its noble p#rpose- At the sa(e ti(e& an$ atte(pt on the part of the e(plo$er to evae or ela$ its e?ec#tion& as observe in #anuncillo an as ;hat act#all$ transpire in;i&+erly [!%] Co&$osite [!B] Air #hili$$ines [!D] an Ro.uero& [!G] sho#l not be co#ntenance-
The test is t;o3fol5 71: there (#st be act#al ela$ or the fact that the orer of reinstate(ent pening appeal ;as not e?ec#te prior to its reversalE an 7!: the ela$ (#st not be #e to the e(plo$er>s #nF#stifie act or o(ission- If the ela$ is #e to the e(plo$er>s #nF#stifie ref#sal& the e(plo$er (a$ still be re<#ire to pa$ the salaries not;ithstaning the reversal of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision-
In 5enuino& there ;as no sho;ing that the e(plo$er ref#se to reinstate the e(plo$ee& ;ho ;as the Treas#r$ Sales Division Hea& #ring the short span of fo#r (onths or fro( the pro(#lgation on 0a$ !& 1''B of the )abor Arbiter>s Decision #p to the pro(#lgation on Septe(ber %& 1''B of the N)R. Decision- Notabl$& the for(er N)R. R#les of Aroce#re i not la$ o;n a (echanis( to pro(ptl$ effect#ate the self3e?ec#tor$ orer of reinstate(ent& (aking it iffic#lt to establish that the e(plo$er act#all$ ref#se to co(pl$-
In a sit#ation like that in International Container :er&inal ,ervices Inc) v) *(RC [!2] ;here it ;as allege that the e(plo$er ;as ;illing to co(pl$ ;ith the orer an that the e(plo$ee opte not to p#rs#e the e?ec#tion of the orer& the .o#rt #phel the self3e?ec#tor$ nat#re of the reinstate(ent orer an r#le that the salar$ a#to(aticall$ accr#e fro( notice of the )abor ArbiterMs orer of reinstate(ent #ntil its #lti(ate reversal b$ the N)R.- It ;as later iscovere that the e(plo$ee inee (ove for the iss#ance of a ;rit b#t ;as not acte #pon b$ the )abor Arbiter- In that scenario ;here the ela$ ;as ca#se b$ the )abor Arbiter& it ;as r#le that the inaction of the )abor Arbiter ;ho faile to act #pon the e(plo$ee>s (otion for the iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion (a$ no longer aversel$ affect the ca#se of the is(isse e(plo$ee in vie; of the self3e?ec#tor$ nat#re of the orer of reinstate(ent- [!6]
The ne; N)R. R#les of Aroce#re& ;hich took effect on "an#ar$ 2& !11G& no; re<#ire the e(plo$er to s#b(it a report of co(pliance ;ithin 11 calenar a$s fro( receiptof the )abor Arbiter>s ecision& [!'] isobeience to ;hich clearl$ enotes a ref#sal to reinstate- The e(plo$ee nee not file a (otion for the iss#ance of the ;rit of e?ec#tion since the )abor Arbiter shall thereafter &otu $ro$rio iss#e the ;rit- ,/.h .h- )-9 r3<-0 /) 4<ac-, .h-r- /0 har*<; a); */@@/c3<.; /) *-.-r:/)/)= .h- -:4<o;-r?0 /).ra)0/=-)c- /) /::-*/a.-<; co:4<;/)= 9/.h .h- or*-r-
In the case at bar& petitioners e?erte efforts [%1] to e?ec#te the )abor Arbiter>s orer of reinstate(ent #ntil the$ ;ere able to sec#re a ;rit of e?ec#tion& albeit iss#e onOctober D& !111 after the reversal b$ the N)R. of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision- Technicall$& there ;as still act#al ela$ ;hich brings to the <#estion of ;hether the ela$ ;as #e to responent>s #nF#stifie act or o(ission-
It is apparent that there ;as inaction on the part of responent to reinstate the(& b#t ;hether s#ch o(ission ;as F#stifie epens on the onset of the e?igenc$ of corporate rehabilitation-
It is settle that #pon appoint(ent b$ the S*. of a rehabilitation receiver& all actions for clai(s before an$ co#rt& trib#nal or boar against the corporation shall i$so 0ure be s#spene- [%1] As state earl$ on& #ring the penenc$ of petitioners> co(plaint before the )abor Arbiter& the S*. place responent #ner an Interi( Rehabilitation Receiver- After the )abor Arbiter renere his ecision& the S*. replace the Interi( Rehabilitation Receiver ;ith a Aer(anent Rehabilitation Receiver-
.ase la; recogni@es that #nless there is a restraining orer& the i(ple(entation of the orer of reinstate(ent is (inisterial an (anator$- [%!] This inF#nction or s#spension of clai(s b$ legislative fiat [%%] partakes of the nat#re of a restraining orer that constit#tes a legal F#stification for responent>s non3co(pliance ;ith the reinstate(ent orer- Responent>s fail#re to e?ercise the alternative options of act#al reinstate(ent an pa$roll reinstate(ent ;as th#s F#stifie- S#ch being the case& responent>s obligation to pa$ the salaries pening appeal& as the nor(al effect of the non3e?ercise of the options& i not attach-
Hhile reinstate(ent pening appeal ai(s to avert the contin#ing threat or anger to the s#rvival or even the life of the is(isse e(plo$ee an his fa(il$& it oes not conte(plate the perio ;hen the e(plo$er3corporation itself is si(ilarl$ in a 0udicially &onitored state of being res#scitate in orer to s#rvive-
The parallelis( bet;een a F#icial orer of corporation rehabilitation as a F#stification for the non3e?ercise of its options& on the one han& an a clai( of act#al an i((inent s#bstantial losses as gro#n for retrench(ent& on the other han& stops at the re line on the financial state(ents- ,e$on the analogo#s conition of financial gloo(& as isc#sse b$ "#stice )eonaro C#is#(bing in his Separate Opinion& are (ore salient istinctions- +nlike the gro#n of s#bstantial losses conte(plate in a retrench(ent case& the state of corporate rehabilitation ;as F#iciall$ pre3eter(ine b$ a co(petent co#rt an not for(#late for the first ti(e in this case b$ responent-
0ore i(portantl$& there are legal effects arising fro( a F#icial orer placing a corporation #ner rehabilitation- Responent ;as& #ring the perio (aterial to the case& effectivel$ eprive of the alternative choices #ner Article !!% of the )abor .oe& not onl$ b$ virt#e of the stat#tor$ inF#nction b#t also in vie; of the interi( relin<#ish(ent of (anage(ent control to give ;a$ to the f#ll e?ercise of the po;ers of the rehabilitation receiver- Ha there been no nee to rehabilitate& responent (a$ have opte for act#al ph$sical reinstate(ent pening appeal to opti(i@e the #tili@ation of reso#rces- Then again& tho#gh the (anage(ent (a$ think this ;ise& the rehabilitation receiver (a$ ecie other;ise& not to (ention the s#bsistence of the inF#nction on clai(s-
In s#(& the obligation to pa$ the e(plo$ee>s salaries #pon the e(plo$er>s fail#re to e?ercise the alternative options #ner Article !!% of the )abor .oe is not a har an fast r#le& consiering the inherent constraints of corporate rehabilitation-
,$ERE'ORE& the petition is PAR#IA! "ENIE"- Insofar as the .o#rt of Appeals Decision of Dece(ber D& !11% an Resol#tion of April 1G& !11B ann#lling the N)R. Resol#tions affir(ing the valiit$ of the Hrit of *?ec#tion an the Notice of Jarnish(ent are concerne& the .o#rt fins no reversible error-
SO ORDERED. *N ,AN. [G.R. No. 118651. Oc.o>-r 16, 199F] PIONEER #EG#URI%ING CORP. a)*Cor &UIANO IM, petitioners, vs. NA#IONA ABOR REA#IONS COMMISSION, PIONEER #EG#URI%ING ,OR(ERS UNION a)* OUR"ES A. "E &ESUS, respondents. " E C I S I O N 'RANCISCO, J.+ The facts are as follo;s5 Arivate responent )o#res A- e "es#s is petitioners> reviserKtri((er since 1'61- As reviserKtri((er& e "es#s base her assigne ;ork on a paper note poste b$ petitioners- The poste paper ;hich contains the corresponing price for the ;ork to be acco(plishe b$ a ;orker is ientifie b$ its A-O- N#(ber- On A#g#st 1D& 1''!& e "es#s ;orke on A-O- No- %6D% b$ tri((ing the cloths> ribs- She thereafter s#b(itte tickets corresponing to the ;ork one to her s#pervisor- Three a$s later& e "es#s receive fro( petitioners> personnel (anager a (e(oran#( re<#iring her to e?plain ;h$ no isciplinar$ action sho#l be taken against her for ishonest$ an ta(pering of official recors an oc#(ents ;ith the intention of cheating as A-O- No- %6D% allegel$ re<#ire no tri((ing- The (e(oran#( also place her #ner preventive s#spension for thirt$ a$s starting fro( A#g#st 1'& 1''!- In her han;ritten e?planation& e "es#s (aintaine that she (erel$ co((itte a (istake in tri((ing A-O- No- %6D% as it has the sa(e st$le an esign as A-O- No- %6!B ;hich has an attache price list for tri((ing the ribs an a(itte that she (a$ have been negligent in pres#(ing that the sa(e ;ork ;as to be one ;ith A-O- No- %6D%& b#t not for ishonest$ or ta(pering Aetitioners> personnel epart(ent& nonetheless& ter(inate her fro( e(plo$(ent an sent her a notice of ter(ination ate Septe(ber 16& 1''!- On Septe(ber !!& 1''!& e "es#s file a co(plaint for illegal is(issal against petitioners- The )abor Arbiter ;ho hear the case note that e "es#s ;as a(pl$ accore proce#ral #e process in her ter(ination fro( service- Nevertheless& after observing that e "es#s (ae so(e f#rther tri((ing on A-O- No- %6D% an that her is(issal ;as not F#stifie& the )abor Arbiter hel petitioners g#ilt$ of illegal is(issal- Aetitioners ;ere accoringl$ orere to reinstate e "es#s to her previo#s position ;itho#t loss of seniorit$ rights an ;ith f#ll back;ages fro( the ti(e of her s#spension on A#g#st 1'& 1''!- Dissatisfie ;ith the )abor Arbiter>s ecision& petitioners appeale to the p#blic responent National )abor Relations .o((ission 7N)R.:- In its "#l$ !1& 1''B ecision& the N)R. [1] r#le that e "es#s ;as negligent in pres#(ing that the ribs of A-O- No- %6D% sho#l like;ise be tri((e for having the sa(e st$le an esign as A-O- No- %6!B& th#s petitioners cannot be entirel$ fa#lte for is(issing e "es#s- The N)R. eclare that the stat#s .uo bet;een the( sho#l be (aintaine an affir(e the )abor Arbiter>s orer of reinstate(ent& b#t ;itho#t back;ages- The N)R. f#rther 8irecte petitioner to pa$ e "es#s her back salaries fro( the ate she file her (otion for e?ec#tion on Septe(ber !1& 1''% #p to the ate of the pro(#lgation of [the] ecision-9 [!] Aetitioners file their partial (otion for reconsieration ;hich the N)R. enie& hence this petition anchore s#bstantiall$ on the allege N)R.>s error in holing that e "es#s is entitle to reinstate(ent an back salaries- On 0arch G& 1''G& petitioners file its s#pple(ent to the petition a(plif$ing f#rther their arg#(ents- In a resol#tion ate 4ebr#ar$ !1& 1''D& the .o#rt re<#ire responents to co((ent thereon- Arivate responent e "es#s an the Office of the Solicitor Jeneral& in behalf of p#blic responent N)R.& s#bse<#entl$ file their co((ents- Thereafter& petitioners file t;o reFoiners [sho#l be replies] to responents> respective co((ents- Responents in #e ti(e file their reFoiners- These are t;o interrelate an cr#cial iss#es& na(el$5 71: ;hether or not e "es#s ;as illegall$ is(isse& an 7!: ;hether or not an orer for reinstate(ent nees a ;rit of e?ec#tion- Aetitioners insist that the N)R. gravel$ ab#se its iscretion in holing that e "es#s is entitle to reinstate(ent to her previo#s position for she ;as not illegall$ is(isse in the first place- In s#pport thereof& petitioners <#ote portions of the N)R. ecision ;hich state that 8responent [petitioners herein] cannot be entirel$ fa#lte for is(issing the co(plaint9 [%] an that there ;as 8no illegal is(issal to speak of in the case at bar9- [B] Aetitioners f#rther a that e "es#s breache the tr#st repose in her& hence her is(issal fro( service is proper on the basis of loss of confience& citing as a#thorit$ the cases of <cean :er&inal ,ervices Inc) v) *(RC& 1'2 S.RA B'1E Coca/Cola !ottlers #hil) Inc) v) *(RC& 12! S.RA 2D1& an #iedad v) (anao del *orte %lectric Coo$erative& [D] 1DB S.RA D11- The arg#(ents lack (erit- The entire paragraph ;hich co(prises the gist of the N)R.>s ecision fro( ;here petitioners erive an isolate the afore<#ote portions of the N)R.>s observation reas in f#ll as follo;s5 8He cannot f#ll$ s#bscribe to the co(plainant>s clai( that she tri((e the ribs of AO%6D% in the light of the s;orn state(ent of her s#pervisor Rebecca 0aarcos 7Rollo& p- GB: that no tri((ing ;as necessar$ beca#se the ribs ;ere alrea$ of the proper length- The co(plainant herself a(itte in her sin#(paang sala$sa$ 7Rollo& p- BD: that 8Aking napansin na hini panta$3panta$ ang lapa ng (ga ribs AO%6D% 3 (as (aigsi ang nag#pit ko sa (ga ribs ng AO%6D% ka$sa sa (ga ribs ng (ga nakaraang AO>s- The co(plaint being an e?perience reviserKtri((er for al(ost t;elve 71!: $ears sho#l have calle the attention of her s#pervisor regaring her observation of AO%6D%- It sho#l be note that co(plainant ;as tr$ing to clai( as pro#ction o#tp#t BB2 pieces of tri((e ribs of AO%6D% ;hich responents insists that co(plainant i not o an$- She ;as therefore negligent in pres#(ing that the ribs of AO%6D% sho#l like;ise be tri((e for having the sa(e st$le an esign as AO%6!B- .o(plainant cannot pass on the bla(e to her s#pervisor ;ho( she clai(e checke the sai tickets prior to the s#b(ission to the Acco#nting Depart(ent- As e?plaine b$ responent& ;hat the s#pervisor oes is (erel$ not the s#b(ission of tickets an o so(e checking before for;aring the sa(e to the Acco#nting Depart(ent- It ;as never isp#te that it is the Acco#nting Depart(ent ;ho oes the etaile checking an co(p#tation of the tickets as has been the co(pan$ polic$ an practice- ,ase on the foregoing an consiering that responent cannot be entirel$ fa#lte for is(issing co(plainant as the co(plainant herself ;as also negligent in the perfor(ance of her Fob& He hereb$ r#le that stat#s .uo bet;een the( sho#l be (aintaine as a (atter of co#rse- He th#s affir( the ecision of )abor Arbiter reinstating the co(plainant b#t ;itho#t back;ages- The a;ar of back;ages in general are grante on gro#ns of e<#it$ for earnings ;hich a ;orker or e(plo$ee has lost #e to his illegal is(issal- 7Inophil Acr$lic 0fg- .orporation vs) N)R.& J-R- No- 'GB66 Septe(ber !2& 1''%: There being no illegal is(issal to speak in the case at bar& the a;ar for back;ages sho#l necessaril$ be elete-9 [G] He note that the N)R.>s ecision is <#ite categorical in fining that e "es#s ;as (erel$ negligent in the perfor(ance of her #t$- S#ch negligence& the )abor Arbiter elineate& ;as bro#ght abo#t b$ the petitioners> plain i(provience- Th#s5 8After caref#l assess(ent of the allegations an oc#(ents available on recor& ;e are convince that the penalt$ of is(issal ;as not F#stifie- 8At the o#tset& it is re(arkable that responents i not en$ nor isp#te that A-O- %6D% has the sa(e st$le an esign as A-O- %6!BE that A-O- %6!B ;as (ae as g#ie for the ;ork one on A-O- %6D%E an& (ost i(portantl$& that the notation correction on A-O- %6!B ;as (ae onl$ after the error ;as iscovere b$ responents> Acco#nting Depart(ent- 8,e s#re that as it (a$& the fact#al iss#e in this case is ;hether or not co(plaint tri((e the ribs of A-O- %6D%L 8Responents (aintaine that she i not beca#se the recor in Acco#nting Depart(ent allegel$ inicates that no tri((ing is to be one on A-O- %6D%- ,asicall$& this allegation is #ns#bstantiate- 8It (#st be e(phasi@e that in ter(ination cases the b#rent of proof rests #pon the e(plo$er- 8In the instant case& responents> (ere allegation that A-O- %6D% nee not be tri((e oes not satisf$ the proof re<#ire to ;arrant co(plainant>s is(issal- 8No;& granting that the Acco#nting recor is correct& ;e still believe that co(plainant i so(e f#rther tri((ing on A-O- %6D% base on the follo;ing gro#ns5 84irst& S#pervisor Rebecca 0aarcos ;ho o#ght to kno; the ;ork to be perfor(e beca#se she ;as in3charge of assigning Fobs& reporte no ano(all$ ;hen the tickets ;ere s#b(itte to her- 8Incientall$& s#pervisor 0aarcos testi(on$ is s#spect beca#se if she co#l recall ;hat she orere the co(plainant to o seven 72: (onths ago 7to revise the collars an plackets of shirts: there ;as no reason for her not to etect the allege ta(pering at the ti(e co(plainant s#b(itte her tickets& after all& that ;as part of her Fob& if not her (ain Fob- 8Seconl$& she i not e?cee her <#ota& other;ise she co#l have si(pl$ aske for (ore- 8That her o#tp#t ;as re(arkabl$ big granting (isinterprete it is tr#e& is ;ell e?plaine in that the parts she ha tri((e ;ere lesser co(pare to those ;hich she ha c#t before- 8In this connection& responents (isinterprete the han;ritten e?planation of the co(plainant ate !1 A#g#st 1''!& beca#se the letter never a(its that she never tri((e A-O- %6D%& on the contrar$ the follo;ing sentence& QSa kat#na$an nakapagba;as na(an talaga ako na i ko inaasahang inalis na pala ang pres$o ng Sec- ' A-O- %6D% na ito-> is cr$stal clear that she i tri( the ribs on A-O- %6D%-9 [2] Jleane either fro( the )abor Arbiter>s observations or fro( the N)R.>s assess(ent& it istinctl$ appears that petitioners> acc#sation of ishonest$ an ta(pering of official recors an oc#(ents ;ith intention of cheating against e "es#s ;as not s#bstantiate b$ clear an convincing evience- Aetitioners si(pl$ faile& both before the )abor Arbiter an the N)R.& to ischarge the b#rent of proof an to valil$ F#stif$ e "es#s> is(issal fro( service- The la;& in this light& irects the e(plo$ers& s#ch as herein petitioners& not to ter(inate the services of an e(plo$ee e?cept for a F#st or a#thori@e ca#se #ner the )abor .oe- [6] )ack of a F#st ca#se in the is(issal fro( service of an e(plo$ee& as in this case& reners the is(issal illegal& espite the e(plo$er>s observance of proce#ral #e process- ['] An ;hile the N)R. state that 8there ;as no illegal is(issal to speak of in the case at bar9 an that petitioners cannot be entirel$ fa#lte therefor& sai state(ents are inorinate prono#nce(ents ;hich i not re(ove the assaile is(issal fro( the real( of illegalit$- Neither can these prono#nce(ents precl#e #s fro( holing other;ise- He also fin the i(position of the e?tre(e penalt$ of is(issal against e "es#s as certainl$ harsh an grossl$ isproportionate to the negligence co((itte& especiall$ ;here sai e(plo$ee hols a faithf#l an an #ntarnishe t;elve3$ear service recor- Hhile an e(plo$er has the inherent right to iscipline its e(plo$ees& ;e have al;a$s hel that this right (#st al;a$s be e?ercise h#(anel$& an the penalt$ it (#st i(pose sho#l be co((ens#rate to the offense involve an to the egree of its infraction- [11] The e(plo$er sho#l bear in (in that& in the e?ercise of s#ch right& ;hat is at stake is not onl$ the e(plo$ee>s position b#t her livelihoo as ;ell- *<#all$ #n(eritorio#s is petitioners> assertion that the is(issal is F#stifie on the basis of loss of confience- Hhile loss of confience& as correctl$ arg#e b$ petitioners& is one of the vali gro#ns for ter(ination of e(plo$(ent& the sa(e& ho;ever& cannot be #se as a prete?t to vinicate each an ever$ instance of #n;arrante is(issal- To be a vali gro#n& it (#st sho;n that the e(plo$ee concerne is responsible for the (iscon#ct or infraction an that the nat#re of his participation therein renere hi( absol#tel$ #n;orth$ of the tr#st an confience e(ane b$ his position- [11] In this cae& petitioners ;ere #ns#ccessf#l in establishing their acc#sations of ishonest$ an ta(pering of recors ;ith intention of cheating- Inee& even if petitioners> allegations against e "es#s ;ere tr#e& the$ F#st the sa(e faile to prove that her position nees the contin#e an #nceasing tr#st of her e(plo$ee>s f#nctions- [1!] S#rel$& e "es#s ;ho occ#pies the position of a reviserKtri((er oes not re<#ire the petitioners> perpet#al an f#ll confience- In this regar& petitioners> reliance on the cases of <cean :er&inal ,ervices Inc) v) *(RCE Coca/Cola !ottlers #hil) Inc) v) *(RCE an #iedad v) (anao del *orte %lectric Coo$erative& ;hich ;hen per#se involve positions that re<#ire the e(plo$ers> f#ll tr#st an confience& is ;holl$ (isplace- In Ocean Terminal Services& for instance& the is(isse e(plo$ee ;as esignate as e?peiter an canvasser ;hose responsibilit$ is (ainl$ to (ake e(ergenc$ proc#re(ents of tools an e<#ip(ents an ;as entr#ste ;ith the necessar$ cash for b#$ing the(- The case of oca!ola "ottlers& on the other han& involves a sales agent ;hose Fob e?poses hi( to the ever$a$ financial transactions involving the e(plo$er>s goos an f#ns& ;hile that of #iedad concerns a bill collector ;ho essentiall$ hanles the e(plo$er>s cash collections- +no#btel$& the position of a reviserKtri((er co#l not be e<#ate ;ith that of a canvasser& sales agent& or a bill collector- ,esies& the involve e(plo$ees in the three afore(entione cases ;ere clearl$ proven g#ilt$ of infractions #nlike private responent in the case at bar- Th#s& petitioners epenence on these cite cases is inacc#rate& to sa$ the least- 0ore& ;hether or not e "es#s (eets the a$>s <#ota of ;ork she& F#st the sa(e& is pai the ail$ (ini(#( ;age- [1%] .orollar$ to o#r eter(ination that e "es#s ;as illegall$ is(isse is her i(perative entitle(ent to reinstate(ent an back;ages as (anate b$ la;- [1B] Hhence& ;e (ove to the secon iss#e& i-e-& ;hether or not an orer for reinstate(ent nees a ;rit of e?ec#tion- Aetitioners> theor$ is that an orer for reinstate(ent is not self3e?ec#tor$- The$ stress that there (#st be a ;rit of e?ec#tion ;hich (a$ be iss#e b$ the N)R. or b$ the )abor Arbiter &otu $ro$rio or on (otion of an intereste part$- The$ f#rther (aintain that even if a ;rit of e?ec#tion ;as iss#e& a ti(el$ appeal co#ple b$ the posting of appropriate s#perseeas bon& ;hich the$ i in this case& effectivel$ forestalle an sta$e e?ec#tion of the reinstate(ent orer of the )abor Arbiter- As s#pporting a#thorit$& petitioners e(phaticall$ cite an bank on the case of Maranaw =otel Resort Cor$oration (Century #ar" ,heraton Manila) v) *(RC& !%6 S.RA 1'1- Arivate responent e "es#s& for her part& (aintains that petitioners sho#l have reinstate her i((eiatel$ after the ecision of the )abor Arbiter orering her reinstate(ent ;as pro(#lgate since the la; (anates that an orer for reinstate(ent is i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$- An appeal& she sa$s& co#l not sta$ the e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent orer for she co#l either be a(itte back to ;ork or (erel$ reinstate in the pa$roll ;itho#t nee of a ;rit of e?ec#tion- De "es#s arg#es that a ;rit of e?ec#tion is necessar$ onl$ for the enforce(ent of ecisions& orers& or a;ars ;hich have ac<#ire finalit$- In effect& e "es#s is #rging the .o#rt to re3e?a(ine the r#ling lai o;n in $aranaw- Article !!% of the )abor .oe& as a(ene b$ R-A- No- G21D ;hich took effect on 0arch !1& 1'6'& pertinentl$ provies5 8ART- !!%- Appeal- 33Decisions& a;ars& or orers of the )abor Arbiter are final an e?ec#tor$ #nless appeale to the .o((ission b$ an$ or both parties ;ithin ten 711: calenar a$s fro( receipt of s#ch ecisions& a;ars& or orers- S#ch appeal (a$be entertaine onl$ on an$ of the follo;ing gro#ns5 ??? ??? ??? 8In an event& the ecision of the )abor Arbiter reinstating a is(isse or separate e(plo$ee& insofar as the reinstate(ent aspect is concerne& shall i((eiatel$ be e?ec#tor$& even pening appeal- The e(plo$ee shall either be a(itte back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or separation or& at the option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reistate in the pa$roll- The posting of a bon b$ the e(plo$er shall not sta$ the e?ec#tion for reinstate(ent provie herein- ??? ??? ??? He initiall$ interprete the afore<#ote provision in Inciong v) *(RC- [1D] The .o#rt [1G] (ae this brief co((ent5 8The ecision of the )abor Arbiter in this case ;as renere on Dece(ber 16& 1'66& or three 7%: (onths before Article !!% of the )abor .oe ;as a(ene b$ Rep#blic Act G21D 7;hich beca(e la; on 0arch !1& 1'6':& proviing that a ecision of the )abor Arbiter orering the reinstate(ent of a is(isse or separate e(plo$ee shall be i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$ insofar as the reinstate(ent aspect is concerne& an the posting of an appeal bon b$ the e(plo$er shall not sta$ s#ch e?ec#tion- Since this ne; la; contains no provision giving it retroactive effect 7Art- B& .ivil .oe:& the a(en(ent (a$ not be applie to this case-9 ;hich the .o#rt aopte an applie in Callanta v) *(RC- [12] In 9a&+oanga City >ater ?istrict v) !uat& [16] the .o#rt constr#e Article !!% to (ean e?actl$ ;hat it sa$s- He sai5 8+ner the sai provision of la;& the ecision of the )abor Arbiter reinstating a is(isse or separate e(plo$ee insofar as the reinstate(ent aspect is concerne& shall be i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$& even pening appeal- The e(plo$er shall reinstate the e(plo$ee concerne either b$5 7a: act#all$ a(itting hi( back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or separationE or 7b: at the option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reinstating hi( in the pa$roll- I((eiate reinstate(ent is (anate an is not sta$e b$ the fact that the e(plo$er has appeale& or has poste a cash or s#ret$ bon pening appeal-9 [1'] He e?presse a si(ilar vie; a $ear earlier in Medina v) Consolidated !roadcasting ,yste& (C!,) ?9>X [!1] an lai o;n the r#le that an e(plo$er ;ho fails to co(pl$ ;ith an orer of reinstate(ent (akes hi( liable for the e(plo$ee>s salaries- Th#s5 8Aetitioners constr#e the above paragraph to (ean that the ref#sal of the e(plo$er to reinstate an e(plo$ee as irecte in an e?ec#tor$ orer of reinstate(ent ;o#l (ake it liable to pa$ the latter>s salaries- This interpretation is correct- +ner Article !!% of the )abor .oe& as a(ene& an e(plo$er has t;o options in orer for hi( to co(pl$ ;ith an orer of reinstate(ent& ;hich is i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$& even pening appeal- 4irstl$& he can a(it the is(isse e(plo$ee back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or separation or to a s#bstantiall$ e<#ivalent position if the for(er position is alrea$ fille #p as ;e have r#le in 'nion of ,u$ervisors (R!) *A:' vs) ,ec) of (a+or& 1!6 S.RA BB! [1'6B]E an #edroso vs) Castro& 1B1 S.RA !D! [1'6G]- Seconl$& he can reinstate the e(plo$ee (erel$ in the pa$roll- 4ailing to e?ercise an$ of the above options& the e(plo$er can be co(pelle #ner pain of conte(pt& to pa$ instea the salar$ of the e(plo$ee- This interpretation is (ore in consonance ;ith the constit#tional protection to labor 7Section %& Art- NIII& 1'62 Constitution)- The right of a person to his labor is ee(e to be propert$ ;ithin the (eaning of the constit#tional g#arant$ that no one shall be eprive of life& libert$& an propert$ ;itho#t #e process of la;- Therefore& he sho#l be protecte against an$ arbitrar$ an #nF#st eprivation of his Fob 7!ondoc vs) #eo$le@s !an" and :rust Co) Inc)& 11% S.RA D'' [1'61]:- The e(plo$ee sho#l not be left ;itho#t an$ re(e$ in case the e(plo$er #nreasonabl$ ela$s reinstate(ent- Therefore& ;e hol that the #nF#stifie ref#sal of the e(plo$er to reinstate an illegall$ is(isse e(plo$ee entitles the e(plo$ee to pa$(ent of his salaries ? ? ?-9 [!1] The .o#rt& ho;ever& eviate fro( this constr#ction in the case of $aranaw- Reinterpreting the i(port of Article !!% in $aranaw& the .o#rt [!!] eclare that the reinstate(ent aspect of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision nees a ;rit of e?ec#tion as it is not self3e?ec#tor$& a eclaration the .o#rt recentl$ reiterate an aopte in Archilles Manufacturing Cor$) v) *(RC- [!%] He note that prior to the enact(ent of R-A- No- G21D& Article !!% [!B] of the )abor .oe contains no provision ealing ;ith the reinstate(ent of an illegall$ is(isse e(plo$ee- The a(en(ent intro#ce b$ R-A- No- G21D is an innovation an a far epart#re fro( the ol la; inicating therb$ the legislat#re>s #ne<#ivocal intent to insert a ne; r#le that ;ill govern the reinstate(ent aspect of a ecision or resol#tion in an$ given labor isp#te- In fact& the la; as no; ;ore e(plo$s the phrase 8shall i((eiatel$ be e?ec#tor$9 ;itho#t <#alification e(phasi@ing the nee for pro(pt co(pliance- As a r#le& 8shall9 in a stat#te co((onl$ enotes an i(perative obligation an is inconsistent ;ith the iea of iscretion [!D] an that the pres#(ption is that the ;or 8shall9& ;hen #se in a stat#te& is (anator$- [!G] An appeal or posting of bon& b$ plain (anate of the la;& co#l not even forestall nor sta$ the e?ec#tor$ nat#re of an orer of reinstate(ent- The la;& (oreover& is #na(big#o#s an clear- Th#s& it (#st be applie accoring to its plain an obvio#s (eaning& accoring to its e?press ter(s- In 5lo+e/Mac"ay Ca+le and Radio Cor$oration v) *(RC& [!2] ;e hel that5 8+ner the principles of stat#tor$ constr#ction& if a stat#te is clear& plain an free fro( a(big#it$& it (#st be given its literal (eaning an applie ;itho#t atte(pte interpretation- This plain3(eaning r#le or ver+a legiserive fro( the (a?i( inde6 ani&i ser&o est 7speech is the ine? of intention: rests on the vali pres#(ption that the ;ors e(plo$e b$ the legislat#re in a stat#te correctl$ e?press its intent b$ the #se of s#ch ;ors as are fo#n in the stat#te- 7er+a legis non est recedendu&& or fro( the ;ors of a stat#te there sho#l be no epart#re-9 [!6] An in confor(it$ ;ith the e?ec#tor$ nat#re of the reinstate(ent orer& R#le V& Section 1G 7%: of the Ne; R3<-0 o@ Proc-*3r- o@ .h- NRC 0.r/c.<; r-B3/r-0 .h- a>or Ar>/.-r .o */r-c. .h- -:4<o;-r .o /::-*/a.-<; r-/)0.a.- .h- */0:/00-* -:4<o;--- Th#s5 8In case the ecision incl#es an orer of reinstate(ent& the )abor Arbiter shall irect the e(plo$er to i((eiatel$ reinstate the is(isse or separate e(plo$ee even pening appeal- The orer of reinstate(ent shall inicate that the e(plo$ee shall either be a(itte back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or separation or& at the option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reinstate in the pa$roll-9 In eclaring that reinstate(ent orer is not self3e?ec#tor$ an nees a ;rit of e?ec#tion& the .o#rt& in $aranaw& averte to the r#le provie #ner Article !!B- He sai5 8It (#st be stresse& ho;ever& that altho#gh the reinstate(ent aspect of the ecision is i&&ediately e6ecutory& it oes not follo; that it is self/e6ecutory- There (#st be a ;rit of e?ec#tion ;hich (a$ be iss#e&otu $ro$rio or on (otion of an intereste part$- Article !!B of the )abor .oe provies5 QART- !!B- %6ecution of decisions orders or awards) /7a: The Secretar$ of )abor an *(plo$(ent or an$ Regional Director& the .o((ission or an$ )abor Arbiter& or (e3arbiter or vol#ntar$ arbitrator (a$& &otu $ro$io or on &otion of any interested $arty& iss#e a ;rit of e?ec#tion on a F#g(ent ;ithin five 7D: $ears fro( the ate it beco(es final an e?ec#tor$ R> 7e(phasis s#pplie: 8The secon paragraph of Section 1& R#le VIII of the Ne; R#les of Aroce#re of the N)R. also provies5 QThe )abor Arbiter& AO*A A(inistrator& or the Regional Director& or his #l$ a#thori@e hearing officer of origin shall& &otu $ro$io or on &otion of any interested $arty& iss#e a ;rit of e?ec#tion on a F#g(ent ;ithin five 7D: $ears fro( the ate it beco(es final an e?ec#tor$ R- No (otion for e?ec#tion shall be entertaine nor a ;rit be iss#e #nless the )abor Arbiter is in possession of the recors of the case ;hich shall incl#e an entr$ of F#g(ent-> 7e(phasis s#pplie: ??? ??? ??? 8In the absence the( of an orer for the iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion on the reinstate(ent aspect of the ecision of the )abor Arbiter& the petitioner ;as #ner no legal obligation to a(it back to ;ork the private responent #ner the ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to her is(issal or& at the petitioner>s option& to (erel$ reinstate her in the pa$roll- An option is a right of election to e?ercise a privilege& an the option in Article !!% of the )abor .oe is e?cl#sivel$ grante to the e(plo$er- The event that gives rise for its e?ercise is not the reinstate(ent ecree of a )abor Arbiter& b#t the ;rit for its e?ec#tion co((aning the e(plo$er to reinstate the e(plo$ee& ;hile the final act ;hich co(pels the e(plo$er to e?ercise the option is the service #pon it of the ;rit of e?ec#tion ;hen& instea of a(itting the e(plo$ee back to his ;ork& the e(plo$er chooses to reinstate the e(plo$ee in the pa$roll onl$- If the e(plo$er oes not e?ercise this option& it (#st forth;ith a(it the e(plo$ee back to ;ork& other;ise it (a$ be p#nishe for conte(pt-9 [!'] A closer e?a(ination& ho;ever& sho;s that the necessit$ for a ;rit of e?ec#tion #ner Article !!B applies onl$ to final an e?ec#tor$ ecisions ;hich are not ;ithin the coverage of Article !!%- 4or co(parison& ;e <#ote the (aterial portions of the s#bFect articles5 8ART- !!%- Appeal- ? ? ? 8In an$ event& the ecision of the )abor Arbiter reinstating a is(isse or separate e(plo$ee& insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be e%ecutory, even pendin& appeal- The e(plo$ee shall either be a(itte back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or separation or& at the option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reinstate in the pa$roll- The postin& of a bond by the employer shall not stay the e%ecution for reinstatement provided herein- ??? ??? ??? 8ART- !!B- *?ec#tion of ecisions& orers& or a;ars- 337a: The Secretar$ of )abor an *(plo$(ent or an$ Regional Director& the .o((ission or an$ )abor Arbiter& or (e3arbiter or vol#ntar$ arbitrator (a$& &otu $ro$io or on (otion of an$ intereste part$& issue a writ of e%ecution on a 'ud&ment within five ()* years from the date it becomes final and e%ecutory& re<#iring a sheriff or a #l$ ep#ti@e officer to e?ec#te or enforce final ecicions& orers or a;ars of the Secretar$ of )abor an *(plo$(ent or regional irector& the .o((ission& the arbiter or (e3 arbiter& or vol#ntar$ arbitrators- In an$ case& it shall be the #t$ of the responsible officer to separatel$ f#rnish i((eiatel$ the co#nsels of recor an the parties ;ith copies of sai ecisions& orers or a;ars- 4ail#re to co(pl$ ;ith the #t$ prescribe herein shall s#bFect s#ch responsible officer to appropriate a(inistrative sanctions-I Article !!B states that the nee for a ;rit of e?ec#tion applies onl$ within five ()* years from the date a decision, an order or awards becomes final and e%ecutory. It cannot relate to an a;ar or orer of reinstate(ent still to be appeale or pening appeal ;hich Article !!% conte(plates- The provision of Article !!% is clear that an a;ar for reinstate(ent shall be immediately e%ecutory even pendin& appeal an the postin& of a bond by the employer shall not stay the e%ecution for reinstatement- The legislative content is <#ite obvio#s& i-e-& to (ake an a;ar of reinstate(ent i((eiatel$ enforceable& even pening appeal- To re<#ire the application for an iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion as prere<#isites for the e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent a;ar ;o#l certainl$ betra$ an r#n co#nter to the ver$ obFect an intent of Article !!%& i- e-& the i((eiate e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent orer- The reason is si(ple- An application for a ;rit of e?ec#tion an its iss#ance co#l be ela$e for n#(ero#s reasons- A (ere contin#ance or postpone(ent of a sche#le hearing& for instance& or an inaction on the part of the )abor Arbiter or the N)R. co#l easil$ ela$ the iss#ance of the ;rit thereb$ setting at na#ght the strict (anate an noble p#rpose envisione b$ Article !!%- In other ;ors& if the re<#ire(ents of Article !!B ;ere to govern& as ;e so eclare in $aranaw& then the e?ec#tor$ nat#re of a reinstate(ent orer or a;ar conte(plate b$ Article !!% ;ill be #n#l$ circ#(scribe an renere ineffect#al- In enacting the la;& the legislat#re is pres#(e to have orainea vali an sensible la;& one ;hich operates no f#rther than (a$ be necessar$ to achieve its specific p#rpose- Stat#tes& as a r#le& are to be constr#e in the light of the p#rpose to be achieve an the evil so#ght to be re(eie- [%1] An ;here stat#es are fairl$ s#sceptible of t;o or (ore constr#ction& that constr#ction sho#l be aopte ;hich ;ill (ost ten to give effect to the (anifest intent of the la; (aker an pro(ote the obFect for ;hich the stat#te ;as enacte& an a constr#ction sho#l be reFecte ;hich ;o#l ten to rener abortive other provisions of the stat#te an to efeat the obFect ;hich the legislator so#ght to attain b$ its enact(ent- [%1] In intro#cing a ne; r#le on the reinstate(ent aspect of a labor ecision #ner R-A- No- G21D& .ongress sho#l not be consiere to be in#lging in (ere se(antic e?ercise- On appeal& ho;ever& the appellate trib#nal concerne (a$ enFoin or s#spen the reinstate(ent orer in the e?ercise of its so#n iscretion- 4#rther(ore& the r#le is that all o#bts in the interpretation an i(ple(entation of labor la;s sho#l be resolve in favor of labor- In r#ling that an orer or a;ar for reinstate(ent oes not re<#ire a ;rit of e?ec#tion the .o#rt is si(pl$ ahering an giving (eaning to this r#le- Henceforth& ;e r#le that an a;ar or orer for reinstate(ent is self3e?ec#tor$- After receipt of the ecision or resol#tion orering the e(plo$eeMs reinstate(ent& the e(plo$er has the right to choose ;hether to re3a(it the e(plo$ee to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or to reinstate the e(plo$ee in the pa$roll- In either instance& the e(plo$er has to infor( the e(plo$ee of his choice- The notification is base on practical consierations for ;itho#t notice& the e(plo$ee has no ;a$ of kno;ing if he has to report for ;ork or not- ,$ERE'ORE& the petition is D*NI*D an the ecision of the )abor Arbiter is hereb$ R*INSTAT*D- .osts against petitioner- SO OR"ERE". G.R. No. 106915 A3=30. E1, 199E &AR"INE "AVIES, INC., petitioner& vs- NA#IONA ABOR REA#IONS COMMISSION, 'OUR#$ "IVISION, CEBU CI#!, a)* SAVA"OR SAU#IN,responents- =ilado =agad A =ilado (aw <ffice for $etitioner) Ro&eo !) %suerte for $rivate res$ondent)
VI#UG, J.+ The instant petition for certiorari seeks the reversal of the resol#tion of responent National )abor Relations .o((ission& ate !! "#l$ 1''!& ;hich eclare private responent Salvaor Sal#tin as not having abanone his ;ork b$ his allege fail#re to report for ;ork #ring the penenc$ of the petitionerMs appeal before the responent .o((ission- Responent Salvaor Sal#tin 7ISal#tinI: ;as e(plo$e b$ petitioner "arine Davies& Inc- 7I"DII:& on 1D "#l$ 1'6D& as a e(onstratorKagrono(ist to provie services relating to& an to give avice on& the pro(otion an #se of "DIMs pesticies an other pro#cts- The controvers$ that spa;ne t;o 7!: special .ivil actions for certiorari 7this instance incl#e: ;ith this .o#rt& began ;hen responent Sal#tin file a co(plaint against petitioner "DI for illegal is(issal& ;ith pra$er for reinstate(ent an back;ages or& in the alternative& separation pa$ pl#s ;age ifferential& service incentive leave pa$& thirteenth 71%th: (onth pa$& holia$ pa$& (oral an e?e(plar$ a(ages& an attorne$Ms fees- The co(plaint ;as ecie b$ the )abor Arbiter in favor of responent Sal#tin in a ecision& ate 16 A#g#st 1''1& the ecretal portion of ;hich reas5 HH*R*4OR*& AR*0IS*S .ONSID*R*D& responent "arine Davies& Inc-K"arine Agche( is hereb$ orere to reinstate co(plaint to his for(er position& ;itho#t loss of seniorit$ an other rights& an ;ith back;ages& in a(o#nt of 4I4TO SIN THO+SAND S*V*N H+NDR*D A*SOS 7ADG&211-11:& ;itho#t e#ction an <#alification- Responent is f#rther orere to pa$ co(plaint the follo;ing5 a-: 1%th (onth pa$ A 6&111-11 b-: Holia$ pa$ 1%&11D-6B c-: Service Incentive pa$ 1&DD2-G1 -: 0oral Da(ages !1&111-11 e-: *?e(plar$ Da(ages 11&111-11 f-: Attorne$Ms fees& ;hich is ten percent 711=: of the total a;are a(o#nt- SO ORD*R*D- "DI appeale the case to the National )abor Relations .o((ission 7N)R.:& an it poste a s#perseeas bon to ans;er for the (onetar$ a;ars- It also reinstate Sal#tin& Ion pa$roll onl$I& beginning !G A#g#st 1''1& 1 in co(pliance ;ith the ;rit of e?ec#tion iss#e b$ the )abor Arbiter p#rs#ant to Article !!%& paragraph %& of the )abor .oe- In a ecision& ate 12 October 1''1& N)R. is(isse "DIMs appeal for lack of (erit b#t (oifie the ecision b$ eli(inating the a;ars given for holia$ pa$& service incentive leave pa$& (oral an e?e(plar$ a(ages- 8 A (otion for reconsieration ;as file ;hich ;as enie in N)R.Ms resol#tion of 1% "an#ar$ 1''!- E On 1B 4ebr#ar$ 1''!& "DI file its first petition for certiorari ;ith this .o#rt& ockete as J-R- No- 11%2!1& assailing the 12 October 1''1 ecision an the resol#tion of 1% "an#ar$ 1''! of responent .o((ission- In o#r resol#tion& ate !G 4ebr#ar$ 1''!& the petition ;as is(isse for fail#re to co(pl$ ;ith this .o#rtMs .irc#lar No- !63'1 on for#(3shopping- Its s#bse<#ent (otion for reconsieration ;as itself enie on !1 0a$ 1''!- The resol#tion of !G 4ebr#ar$ 1''! beca(e final an e?ec#tor$ on 1' "#ne 1''!& an an entr$ of F#g(ent ;as accoringl$ (ae on !1 A#g#st 1''!- At the ti(e ;hen the above narrate events ;ere still #nfoling& so(e (aterial facts occ#re beginning ;ith "DIMs appeal to the N)R. on the 16 A#g#st 1''1 ecision of the )abor Arbiter- Shortl$ after the reinstate(ent of Sal#tin Ion pa$roll onl$I& "DI sent a letter& ate !1 Septe(ber 1''1& to Sal#tin irecting hi( to report for ;ork to their ,acolo ,ranch 0anager- Sal#tin& as irecte reporte on the !Bth of Septe(ber 1''1 at aro#n '5!1 a-(- He i not sta$ long& ho;ever& since after fifteen (in#tes or so& he left an ;as reporte not to have thereafter ret#rne for ;ork- "DI forth;ith stoppe f#rther pa$(ent of salar$ to Sal#tin- On 12 October 1''1& "DI file a I0anisfestation an 0otionI ;ith the responent .o((ission stating& inter alia& that5 Sal#tin be consiere as having abanone his ;ork consiering his contin#o#s absence of (ore than three 7%: ;eeks since he ;as re<#ire to report for ;ork - - - an that an$ a;ar for reinstate(ent to his for(er position& ;itho#t loss of seniorit$ an other rights& in the ArbiterMs ecision s#bFect of this appeal be consiere an hel as ;aive or lost- 5 Sal#tin oppose the (otion& clai(ing that he ;as force to leave in haste beca#se he ;as then s#ffering fro( a serio#s ail(ent- He s#b(itte a (eical certificate to s#pport his clai(- 5 On 1% "an#ar$ 1''!& responent .o((ission enie "DIMs I0anifestation S 0otionI stating& a(ong other things& that5 As to the iss#e of ;hether the co(plaint3appellee Salvaor Sal#tin is g#ilt$ of ;ork abanon(ent& this is a ne; an fact#al (atter ;hich has to be eter(ine an resolve in appropriate proceeings before the Arbitration ,ranch& (ore especiall$ in the present case& ;here the charge of abanon(ent is serio#sl$ controverte- Arescining fro( its receipt of an infor(ation that Sal#tin ;as e(plo$e else;here& "DI file an e6 $arte (otion& ate 1G "#ne 1''!& to set for hearing the aforestate I0anifestation an 0otion-I 6 Sal#tin& on his part& also file a (otion pra$ing that "DI be orere to release his ;ithhel salar$& F clai(ing that he ha reporte for ;ork ;hen he recovere fro( his ail(ent on 11 Dece(ber 1''1- 8 On !! "#l$ 1''!& responent .o((ission iss#e its assaile resol#tion stating& viz5 HH*R*4OR*& Are(ises consiere& the responentMs pra$er to eclare or consier the co(plainant to have abanone his Fob for his allege fail#re to report back to ;ork #ring the penenc$ of the appeal in this case is hereb$ enie for lack of (erit- The co(plainantMs (otion for release of his salar$ since !B Septe(ber 1''1& #ntil he for(all$ seeks for the enforce(ent of the ecision is like;ise enie- SO ORD*R*D- Hhen the (otion for reconsieration ;as like;ise enie& "DI instit#te on 16 Septe(ber 1''! the present petition for certiorari- D#ring the penenc$ of this petition& "DI file an I#rgent (otion for the iss#ance of ;rit of preli(inar$ inF#nction anKor restraining orerI to prevent the responent .o((ission fro( enforcing its resol#tion of !! "#l$ 1''! an !D A#g#st 1''! insofar as it orere the reinstate(ent of Sal#tin- In its resol#tion& ate % 0arch 1''%& this .o#rt resolve to iss#e a te(porar$ restraining orer- Aetitioner raises this sole assign(ent of error& to ;it5 TH* R*SAOND*NT .O00ISSION A.T*D HITH JRAV* A,+S* O4 DIS.R*TION IN D*NOINJ A*TITION*RMS .ONT*NTIONKS+,0ISSION THAT ARIVAT* R*SAOND*NT SA)+TIN SHO+)D ,* .ONSID*R*D AS HAVINJ A,ANDON*D HIS HORT HH*N H* 4AI)*D TO R*AORT 4OR HORT A*NDINJ TH* A*TITION*R3*0A)OO*RMS AAA*A) 4RO0 TH* AR,IT*RMS D*.ISION JRANTINJ R*INSTAT*0*NT& A)THO+JH AT THAT TI0* H* HAS ON R*INSTAT*0*NT ON AAORO)) U THIS NOTHITHSTANDINJ A*TITION*RMS SHOHINJ THAT S+.H 4AI)+R* TO R*AORT HAS ,*.A+S* R*SAOND*NT3*0A)OO** HAS TH*N HORTINJ A)SO HITH ANOTH*R .O0AANO& H*N.* H* HAS R*.*IVINJ SA)ARI*S 4RO0 ,OTH- In the s#bse<#ent pages of its petition& "DI paraphrase the assigne iss#e in this ;ise5 Is Sal#tin& ;ho ;as then on pa$roll reinstate(ent since !G A#g#st 1''1& not g#ilt$ of abanon(ent ;hen his fail#re to report for ;ork ;as beca#se he ;as also ;orking for another entit$ fro( 11 Septe(ber 1''1 to %1 Dece(ber 1''1L .orrelativel$& i responent .o((ission not gravel$ ab#se its iscretion ;hen it i not take into consieration s#ch other e(plo$(entL O#r ans;er is in the negative- The recors sho; that at the ti(e "DI file its 0anifestation an 0otion& ate 12 October 1''1& the sole basis of its pra$er for a eclaration that Sal#tin abanone his ;ork ;as his allege #na#thori@e absences fro( the ate he ;as notifie to report for ;ork- 11 A shift to a ne; foc#s took place ;hen& on %1 "an#ar$ 1''!& "DI& at its re<#est& receive a letter3 certification iss#e b$ the Officer3in3.harge of TingMs *nterprises of Iloilo .it$ that Sal#tin ;as e(plo$e b$ 0onsato Ahilippines& Inc-& fro( 11 Septe(ber to %1 Dece(ber 1''1& as Aggressive .rop Technician& for ;hich he ;as pai AD&1BG-11 per (onth- 18 Th#s& this ;as the reason given b$ "DI in its e6 $arte (otion& ate 1G "#ne 1''!& to set for hearing the 0anifestation an 0otion of 12 October 1''1- N)R. enie the sai e6 $arte (otion in the no; assaile resol#tion of !! "#l$ 1''!- Hhen "DI file its first petition for certiorari 7in J-R- No- 11%2!1: ;ith this .o#rt on 1B 4ebr#ar$ 1''!& assailing the 12 October 1''1 ecision of N)R.& it also raise& as an ae arg#(ent on the allege abanon(ent of ;ork b$ Sal#tin& the fact that he ;as gainf#ll$ e(plo$e else;here- 1E .onsiering that this (atter ;as th#s alrea$ taken #p b$ the petitioner in its first petition for certiorari& ;hich this .o#rt is(isse ;ith finalit$& the petitioner sho#l reall$ no; be barre fro( invoking ane; that iss#e in this present 7secon: petition- ,e that as it (a$& the sa(e fate of is(issal is still inevitable- Altho#gh this .o#rt is not a trier of facts& it (a$ still ;ae thro#gh the recors of a case if onl$ to prevent an$ possible (isgiving in its #lti(ate isposition- 15 The petitionerMs evience to establish Sal#tinMs s#ppose abanon(ent of ;ork is the certification of e(plo$(ent iss#e b$ TingMs *nterprises at the re<#est of herein petitioner to the effect that Sal#tin ha inee been e(plo$e b$ 0onsato Ahilippines& Inc-& #ring the perio fro( 11 Septe(ber to %1 Dece(ber 1''1- Is this eno#ghL Hhat ;e have heretofore sai is this U 4or abanon(ent to constit#te a vali ca#se for ter(ination of e(plo$(ent& there (#st be a eliberate #nF#stifie ref#sal of the e(plo$ee to res#(e his e(plo$(ent- This ref#sal (#st be clearl$ sho;n- 0ere absence is not s#fficientE it (#st be acco(panie b$ overt acts pointing to the fact that the e(plo$ee si(pl$ oes not ;ant to ;ork an$(ore- 15 Abanon(ent of position is a (atter of intention e?presse in clearl$ certain an #ne<#ivocal acts- In this instance& ho;ever& certain #ncontroverte facts sho; F#st e?actl$ the opposite- Hence& Sal#tin i report& as irecte& on !B Septe(ber 1''1& b#t that he co#l not sta$ long beca#se he ;as ailing at that ti(eE he& altho#gh perhaps belatel$ (ae& i seek (eical cons#ltation on 2 Nove(ber 1''1& at the .ora@on )ocsin 0ontelibano 0e(orial Regional Hospital& for Ipeptic #lcerIE an on 11 Dece(ber 1''1& he i& in fact& (anifest his esire to ass#(e his ;ork ;ith the petitioner- This .o#rtMs resol#tion of !G 4ebr#ar$ 1''!& en$ing the petition in J-R- No- 11%2!1& beca(e final an e?ec#tor$ on 1' "#ne 1''!- Responent Sal#tinMs interi( e(plo$(ent& stresse b$ the petitioner& i not stain the pict#re at all- Here& ;e secon the ;ell3consiere vie; of N)R.& th#s U The orer of i((eiate reinstate(ent pening appeal& in cases of illegal is(issal is an ancillar$ relief #ner R-A- G21D grante to a is(isse e(plo$ee to c#shion hi( an his fa(il$ against the i(pact of econo(ic islocation or abr#pt loss of earnings- If the e(plo$ee chooses not to report for ;ork pening resol#tion of the case appeal& he foregoes s#ch a te(porar$ relief an is not pai of his salar$- The final eter(ination of the rights an obligations respectivel$ of the parties is the #lti(ate an final resol#tion of this .o((ission- HH*R*4OR*& the petition is hereb$ DIS0ISS*D- The <#estione resol#tions of the National )abor Relations .o((ission are A44IR0*D& an the te(porar$ restraining orer iss#e b$ this .o#rt is hereb$ )I4T*D- SO ORD*R*D-