Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

REINSTATEMENT PENDING APPEAL

RELIEFS

FOR

ILLEGAL

DISMISSAL-

1. MT.
CARMEL
COLLEGE
VS.
JOCELYN
RESUENA,
VILLALON,SYLVIA SEDAYON and ZONSAYDA EMNACE

EDDIE

DOCTRINES/PRINCIPLES:
1. Art. 223 of the Labor Code provides that reinstatement is
immediately executory even pending appeal only when the Labor
Arbiter himself ordered the reinstatement.
2. Art. 224 of the Labor Code applies when the order of reinstatement
was first decided upon appeal to the NLRC. In other words, the Labor
Arbiter himself did not order reinstatement.
3. Art. 279 of the Labor Code provides thatbackwages are to be
computed from the time of illegal dismissal until reinstatement or
upon petitioners payment of separation pay to respondents if
reinstatement is not longer feasible.
FACTS:
PetitionerMt. Carmel College is a private educational institution and
respondents were its employees. Respondents were dismissed for joining the
protest action against the school administration. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found that
they were not illegally dismissed but ordered that they be awarded 13 th month pay,
separation pay and attorneys fees. The NLRC reversed the findings of the LA finding
the termination of the respondents as illegal and ordering the payment of
backwages of respondents.It further directed the reinstatement of respondents by
way of payment of separation pay, with backwages. This was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.
Petitioner is appealing not the judgment of the NLRC but the manner of
execution of the same. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in upholding the LA and
the NLRC that the award for backwages goes beyond the period May 15, 1998 to
May 25, 1999 on the supposition that reinstatement is self-executory and does not
need a writ of execution for its enforcement.Petitioner avers that the LA went
beyond the terms of the NLRC Decision, as affirmed by the CA, and erroneously
used as bases inapplicable law and jurisprudence in the execution of the
same.Petitioner contends that the award of backwages subject to execution is
limited to the period prior to the appeal and does not include the period during the
pendency of the appeal, on the contention that reinstatement during appeal is
warranted only when the Labor Arbiter rules that the dismissed employee should be
reinstated.
ISSUES:
1.Whetherreinstatement in the case is self-executory and does not need a
writ of execution for its enforcement.
2. Whether the continuing award of backwages is proper.
RULING:
1.No(though the court sees no cogent reason as to the relevance of a
discussion of this issue only that petitioner raised it as an issue).The court states

that the above findings will not affect the award of backwages for the period beyond
May 25, 1999.
Article 224 applies in the given case since the order of
reinstatement was first decided upon appeal to the NLRC and affirmed
with finality by the CA.
2. Yes. The court found out that there is a conflict between the dispositive
portion of the falloand the body of the decision. The fallo stated that respondents
were illegally dismissed and must therefore be ordered reinstated with payment of
backwages from the time were illegally dismissed up to the time of their actual
reinstatement. In view thereof, the court declared that the fallocontrols.
Applying Article 279 of the Labor Code, the court emphasized that
backwages are to be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until
reinstatement or upon petitioners payment of separation pay to
respondents if reinstatement is not longer feasible.