In fact, the recent case of FANO vs. KAIZEN SECURITY AGENCY (G.R. No.

253006. June 30, 2021) as cited by the respondents in their present motion, the High
Court again REITERATED the WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE regarding reinstatement
wages, thus:

Just like in the FANO case, the High Court granted the reinstatement wages in
favor of the employee (Fano) due to the FAILURE of the employer (Kaizen) to comply
with the reinstatement order of the Honorable Arbiter. As unequivocally ruled by the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case:

This case of Fano and Kaizen involves the failure of the

employer to satisfy the LA's immediately executory order of
 reinstatement. From the receipt of the Decision dated December 27,
2017 of the LA until its reversal on May 31, 2018 by the NLRC, Kaizen
did not manifest in any way its intention to reinstate Pano nor did it
submit any compliance report. As a matter of fact, Kaizen only offered
to pay Fano's proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2016, clearly
evading the order of reinstatement. Verily, there was actual delay or that
the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its
reversal. Likewise, such delay was due to the employer's unjustified act
or omission since records do not show any satisfactory reason,
circumstance or situation which would justify Kaizen's non-compliance
with the reinstatement order. Accordingly, Pano has the right to collect
the accrued salaries from the date Kaizen received the Decision of the
LA ordering reinstatement. xxx

In the case at bar, the respondents LIKEWISE failed in their DUTY to either
reinstate the complainants to their former positions OR reinstate them in the payroll.
Assuming for the sake of argument that they were affected by the PANDEMIC, there
could have very easily implemented the Order of the Honorable Arbiter through payroll
reinstatement. This option they did not do.

It should be emphasized that no less that the Constitution, the law and
jurisprudence mandate the State - and by extension the Honorable Tribunal - to afford
FULL PROTECTION TO LABOR. Likewise, ALL DOUBTS should be ruled in favor of
the working man. (see LIRIO vs. GENOVIA, G.R. No. 169757, November 23, 2011.) In
JHORIZALDY UY vs. ENTRO CERAMICA CORPORATION (G.R. No. 174631, October
19, 2011), the High Court declared that “Article 4 of the Labor Code expresses the
basic principle that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor
Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman.”

“In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and implementing
regulations, the employee's welfare should be the primary and paramount
consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and
compassionate spirit of the law as embodied in Article 4 of the Labor Code (which
provides that "[a]ll doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of
[the Labor Code], including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in
favor of labor") and Article 1702 of the Civil Code (which provides that "[i]n case of
doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the
safety and decent living for the laborer”) (PCL v. NLRC, G.R. No. 153031, December
14, 2006)

Clearly, the Honorable Arbiter’s Order is fully compliant with pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, taking into account the unjustified failure of the respondents to comply
with the order of reinstatement and the constitutional policy of providing full protection to
labor