217 JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.) INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, AND/OR RAFAEL BESA PETITIONERS VS.

JOHNSON OFFICE & SALES UNION FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (FFW), MA. JESUSA BONSOL AND RIZALINDA HIRONDO RESPONDENTS
G.R. NO. 172799 JULY 6, 2007 TINGA, J. SV: THE 2 EMPLOYEES FILED A COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. NLRC RULED IN THEIR FAVOR AND ORDERED REINSTATEMENT OR IF NOT FEASIBLE, PAYMENT OF SEPARATION PAY. J&J ARGUES THAT IT HAS THE PREROGATIVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SEPARATION PAY AND REINSTATEMENT (THEY WERE CHOOSING THE FORMER). SC HELD THAT THE CHOICE IS NOT THEIRS. GENERAL RULE: REINSTATEMENT FIRST BEFORE SEPARATION PAY. J&J FAILED TO PROVE STRAINED RELATIONS TO JUSTIFY SEPARATION PAY INSTEAD OF REINSTATEMENT.
1. Case stemmed from an illegal dismissal case filed by Bonsol and Hirondo Against J&J LA dismissed the complaint. On December 14, 2001 NLRC reversed, held that the violations of company procedure by Bonsol and Hirondo didnt constitute serious misconduct or willful disobedience warranting their dismissal. NLRC held that they are entitled to reinstatement. Dispositive portion read they are entitled to reinstatement to their respective former positions w/o loss of seniority rights and privileges but without any backwages or in the alternative, to payment of separation pay each equivalent to month pay for every year of service J&J sought partial reconsideration but it was denied. Neither party appealed from the NLRC resolution within the reglementary period. NLRC resolution became final and executory On March 5, 2002, J&J filed a motion to set case for conference before the NLRC, manifesting their willingness to pay the 2 separation pay and other monetary awards. The 2 were not in attendance when the NLRC called for said conference. LA suggested that they prepare the check payment. The 2 employees sought the issuance of a writ of execution to implement the Dec. 14 resolution and prayed for immediate reinstatement to their former positions. A conference was held and J&J reiterated its intention to pay the separation pay but the 2 employees refused. J&J then filed a manifestation and motion arguing that the Dec 14 resolution granted them the right to choose between reinstatement and payment of separation pay. They also claimed that reinstatement was no longer feasible because of the strained relations between the company and Bonsol and Hirando. June 18, NLRC issued a resolution directing the reinstatement of the 2 pursuant to the Dec. 14 resolution. Though it recognized their right to choose, NLRC disregarded the claim of strained relations. J&J MR denied. At the CA, in a petition for certiorari, J&J alleged that the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution filed by the 2 employees had the effect of altering the Dec. 14 resolution which had already become final and executory. Said resolution granted them the right to choose between reinstatement and separation pay. CA dismissed the petition for certiorari. MR denied.

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

ISSUE/S: 1. WON the choice between reinstatement and separation pay was with the petitioners (J&J) 1. NO an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. And in case reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, and that reinstatement would only worsen the tension and strained relations or where the relationship between the employer and the employees has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. Payment of separation compensation in lieu of reinstatement of an employee illegally dismissed shall be allowed if and only if the employer can prove the existence of circumstances showing that reinstatement will no longer be for the mutual benefit of the employer and employee. J&J is wrong to think that they have the prerogative to choose whether to reinstate or pay separation pay. Neither party can choose. NLRC has the authority to execute its judgment to settle any issue re: details of its judgment NLRC properly exercised its authority to resolve the controversy when it ordered reinstatement. NLRC and CA disregarded J&Js claim that the relation has been strained. SC respects these findings (factual in nature) Said resolution didnt modify Dec 14 resolution (final and executor) it only set reinstatement as the primary relief. An alteration would be adding an award that was not among those stated in the dispositive portion of the earlier resolution. This is not the case here.

The dispositive portion must be read in unanimity with the ratio decidendi of it to grasp the true intent of the decision which in the Dec. 14 resolution which granted their right to reinstatement but acknowledged the fact that they were not entirely without fault and in effect NLRC forfeited the award of backwages. The argument of J&J that since the NLRC found the 2 employees not entirely blameless grants them the right to choose between reinstatement and separation pay cannot be supported by the Dec. 14 resolution. NLRC merely forfeited their backwages because of said fault by the employees

Held: Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED. Digest by: Justin Benedict A. Moreto