MYRNA P. MAGANA VS. MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, INC.

, AND COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 174833 : December 15, 2010

Topic: Police power of the State

EMERGENCY RECIT: Petitioner was a company nurse at Medicard and was subsequently detailed
at Manila Pav. She was offered another job as liaison by Medicard, but she did not accept finding the
job offer as unreasonable. She then filed a case against Medicard and Hotel. The LA awarded a
reinstatement wages which was deleted by the CA. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner since it
is mandated by Labor Code that decision of LA insofar as reinstatement aspect is concerned shall be
immediately executory grounded on the theory that preservation of the lives is a basic duty of the
State (police power).

FACTS:
1.Medicard Phil. (Respondent, a health maintenance org) hired Petitioner Magana as company nurse
and was detailed to Manila Pavilion Hotel.
2.Medicard initially hired Petitioner Magana on probation, but it was eventually converted to
permanent status.
3.There was another nurse who replaced petitioner Magana, so Medicard offered petitioner the
position of liaison officer.
4.Petitioner finds the offer unacceptable and with her continued non-assignment, she sued Medicard
and Manila Pav in NLRC for illegal dismissal and payment of benefits and damages.
5.LA: ruled in favor of petitioner Magana, finding Medicard as mere labor contractor for Manila Pav
which exercised control over petitioner Magana. Manila Pav should reinstate her and pay jointly
with Medicard backwages, 13th mo pay, damages and atty’s fees.
6.NLRC: Affirmed LA with modification, finding Medicard liable for constructive illegal dismissal and
hence, for the payment of separation pay, 13 th month pay, attorney's fees, and reinstatement
wages.
7.CA: deleted the award of reinstatement wages. Hence, Petitioner argues the legality of her
constructive dismissal and that CA erred in deleting the reinstatement of wages.

ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is entitled to draw wages under LA’s ruling even is such order was
subsequently reversed on appeal?

HELD/RATIO: Yes, it is statutorily mandated in Art. 223 of Labor Code.

Article 223. Appeal. - x x x x
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee,
insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending
appeal The employee shall either be (1) admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, (2) merely reinstated
in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement
provided herein. (Emphasis supplied)
 This mandate is a police power measure, grounded on the theory –
the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State, that is more vital than
the preservation of corporate profits. Then, by and pursuant to the same power, the State may
authorize an immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or
separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although temporarily since the appeal
may be decided in favor of the appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life
of the dismissed or separated employee and its family.