RANARA v.

NLRC

August 14, 1992 | Cruz, J. | Petition for Review |Reinstatement: Offer to Reinstate
PETITIONER: Carlo Ranara(Counsel: Public Attorneys Office)
RESPONDENT: NLRC, Oro Construction Supply and/or Jimmy Ting Chang
(Owner/ General Manager) (Counsel: Eduardo P. Cuenca)
SUMMARY:Ranara was told not go back to work anymore by the secretary of
his employer (Chang) alleging that the latter did not like his services. The LA and
NLRC affirmed the dismissal as valid stating that he abandoned when he refused
the offer of reinstatement made after he filed the complaint. SC ruled in favor of
Ranara stating that:
DOCTRINE:The fact that the employer later made an offer toreemploy the
dismissed employee did not cure the vice of his earlier arbitrarydismissal.
FACTS:
1.Carlos Ranara had been working as a driverwith Oro Union
Construction Supply,when he was told by Fe Leonar,secretary
of Jimmy TingChang, not to come back the following day.
Thinking thatshe was only joking, he reported for work as
usual on Nov. 11, 1989, but wassurprised to find some other
person handling the vehiclepreviously assigned to him. It was
only then that Ranararealized that he had really been
separated.
2. Leonar told him that he was hard headed for still coming
back despite her telling him not to report for workbecause
Jimmy Ting Changdoes not like his services.
3.Three days later, Ranara filed a complaint with theDOLE for
illegal dismissal,reinstatement with full back wages,
underpayment ofwages and other benefits.
4. LA: no illegal dismissal; Chang later offered Ranara to
return for work but the latter was not interested and this
indicates that Ranara chose to stop working for Chang.
5.Chang: claimed that he was in a hospital in Manila on Nov.
11, 1989,and that he had not authorized Leonar, or even his
motherwho was the OIC during his absence, toterminate
Ranaras employment. The truth was that it wasRanara who
abandoned his work when he stoppedreporting from Nov. 11,
1989. He also introduceddocumentary evidence, consisting of
payroll and otherrecords, to refute Ranaras monetary claims.
6. NLRC: affirmed LA
ISSUE/S:
1. WoN Ranara was illegally dismissed YES
2. WoN the offer to reinstate made by the
employer subsequent to the filing of complaint
will cure the illegality of dismissal - NO
RULING:NLRC decision affirmed, with the modification that
in addition to themonetary awards therein specified, the
petitioner shall beentitled to separation pay and three years
back wages inlieu of reinstatement.

RATIO:
1.The secretary would nothave presumed to dismiss Ranara if
she had not beenauthorized to do so, considering the
seriousness of this act.It is worth noting that neitherChangs
mother, who was the OIC in hisabsence, nor Chang himself
upon his return, reversed heract and reinstated the Ranara.
2.Claiming that they have astaff of less than ten persons,
Chang or his mothercould not have failed to notice Ranaras
absence afterNov. 1, 1989. Yet they took no steps to rectify
thesecretarys act if it was really unauthorized and, on
thecontrary, accepted Ranaras replacement without question.
3. Abandonment of work is inconsistent with therecorded fact
that 3 days after Ranaras allegeddismissal, he filed a
complaint with the labor authorities. Neither his rejection of
Changs offer to reinstate him be legallyregarded as an
abandonment because Ranara hadbeen placed in an untenable
situation that left him with noother choice. Given again the
smallness of the privaterespondents staff, Ranara would have
found ituncomfortable to continue working under the hostile
eyesof the employer who had been forced to reinstate him.
This was a case of strainedrelations between the employer and
the employee thatjustified Ranaras refusal of the private
respondents offerto return him to his former employment
4.Ranara was illegally dismissed without cause, without any
investigation and without even the politeness of a proper
notice and wassimply told that he should not report back for
work thefollowing day. The fact that his employer later made
an offer to reemployhim did not cure the vice of his earlier
arbitrarydismissal. The wrong had been committed and the
harmdone. Notably, it was only after the complaint had
beenfiled that it occurred to Chang, in a belated gesture of
goodwill, to invite Ranara back to work in his store.
Changssincerity is suspect. It is doubtful if the offer would
have beenmade if Ranara had not complained against him. At
anyrate, sincere or not, the offer of reinstatement could
notcorrect the Ranaras earlier illegal dismissal. They incurred
liability under the LaborCode from the moment Ranara was

illegally dismissed, andthe liability did not abate as a result of

Changsrepentance.

GARCIA V PAL
20 Jan 2009 | Carpio-Morales, J. | Payroll Reinstatement
PETITIONER: Juanito Garcia and Alberto Dumago
RESPONDENTS: Philippine Airlines, Inc.
SUMMARY: Petitioners filed an illegal dismissal case against PAL, which was placed under rehabilitation receivership.
The LA ruled in their favor and ordered immediate reinstatement. The NLRC later reversed. Petitioners sought the salaries
for the period between the LAs favorable decision and the NLRCs decision. SC held that that generally, such would have
been awarded, but this obligation does not attach when the delay in enforcing reinstatement pending appeal was without
the employers fault.
DOCTRINE: A dismissed employee whose case was favourably decided by the LA is entitled to
receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory. Unless there
is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the LA to implement the order of reinstatement and it
is mandatory on the employer to comply therewith. | After the LAs decision is reserved by a
higher tribunal, the employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages if it is shown that
the delay in enforcing reinstatement pending appeal was without the employers fault.
FACTS:
1. PAL filed a case against petitioners after they were allegedly caught sniffing shabu during a raid of PAL
Technical Centers Toolroom Section. After due notice, PAL dismissed them for transgressing the PAL Code
of Discipline, prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages.
2. 11 Jan 1999 - The LA ruled in petitioners favor and ordered PAL to immediately comply with the
reinstatement aspect of the decision.
3. 31 Jan 2000 - The NLRC reversed and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Entry of Judgment was
issued 13 July 2000. Subsequently, on 5 Oct 2000, the LA issued a writ of execution regarding the
reinstatement aspect of his decision, and later a notice of garnishment.
4. PAL moved to quash the writ and lift the notice. The proceedings, which reached the CA, were
suspended until after PALs exit from rehabilitation proceedings.
ISSUES: WoN salaries received during the pendency of an appeal after an order of reinstatement should
be refunded upon an unfavorable final decision - NO
WoN petitioners may collect their wages during the period between the LAs reinstatement order pending
appeal and the NLRCs decision overturning the LAs decision - NO
RULING: Petition partially denied.
RATIO:
1. Art 223 par(3): 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,
pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely
reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for
reinstatement provided herein.
2. Jurisprudence has opposing views regarding reinstatement pending appeal or particularly the option of
payroll reinstatement.
3. In Air Philippines v Zamora, it was ruled that a dismissed employee whose case was favourably decided
by the LA is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory.
Unless there is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the LA to implement the order of reinstatement
and it is mandatory on the employer to comply therewith.
4. In Genuino v NLRC, it was ruled that here is no point in releasing the wages to petitioners since their
dismissal was found to be valid, and to do so would constitute unjust enrichment. Prior to Genuino, there
had been no known similar case requiring an employee to refund salaries received on payroll
reinstatement.

5. Resolved: Air Philippines doctrine prevails. The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render
inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment. The refund doctrine demonstrates how a
favorable decision by the LA could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. The employee would
necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the appeals pendency, only to have to refund
these in case of a final unfavorable decision. It would become more logical for the employee to refuse
payroll reinstatement and find work elsewhere in the interim, if any is available.
6. The rule on reinstatement pending appeal necessitates immediate execution. Any attempt of the
employer to evade or delay execution should not be countenanced. But after the LAs decision is reserved
by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages if it is shown that the
delay in enforcing reinstatement pending appeal was without the employers fault.
7. Two-fold test: (1) actual delay and (2) not due to the employers unjustified act or omission. Here, there
was delay, but it may be attributable to the appointment of the rehabilitation receiver. Thus, the delay was
justified and PALs obligation to pay the salaries pending appeal did not attach.
While reinstatement
pending appeal aims to avert the continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of the
dismissed employee and his family, it does not contemplate the period when the employer-corporation
itself is similarly in a judicially monitored state of being resuscitated in order to survive.
COLLEGE OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION v NLRC
March 22, 2010 | Peralta, J. | Petition for Certiorari | No Refund Doctrine
PETITIONER: College of the Immaculate Concepcion
RESPONDENTS: National Labor Relations Commission and Atty. Marius F. Carlos
SUMMARY: Atty. Marius Carlos was a Dean appointed by Petitioner. After his term as a Dean expired, he was appointed as a
full time professor. A letter was sent to him directing him to explain why no sanctions should be given to him for practicing law
and teaching at other universities without prior permission from them. He was then given two options to either work full time or
part time, but Carlos failed to give a reply, so petitioner wasnt assigned to any teaching load for the next semester. Carlos
complained about the sanctions and filed a complaint for ULP, ID (demotion to faculty member as constructive dismissal), and
payment of backwages and damages. LA ruled in favour of Carlos and reinstated him to Dean, but NLRC reversed and set aside
the decision, reinstating him to a faculty member. Petitioner then asked for a refund of the amounts Carlos received by way of the
reinstatement made by the LA. SC ruled that despite the reversal of the LA Decision, petitioner is not entitled to any refund.
DOCTRINE: Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the
employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court.
On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed
with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he
actually rendered services during the period.
FACTS:
1. Atty. Marius Carlos was appointed Dean of the Dept of Business, Economics and Accountancy by College of Immaculate
Concepcion, effective June 1, 1996 to May 31, 2000. On May 15, a letter was sent to him reminding him that upon expiration of
his term as Dean, he will be a full-time professor of Law and Accounting without diminution of his teaching salary as Dean. This
happened as promised Carlos was given 8 teaching loads as full-time professor.
2. Carlos requested for overload pay saying that the regular full time load is only 6. This was denied by Petitioner, explaining in a
letter that pursuant to Faculty Manual, a full time faculty has at least 24 units/8 teaching loads per semester. In that same letter,
petitioner requested Carlos to vacate the Deans office, and to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for
engaging in practice of law and teaching law in another law school without prior permission from them.
3. Carlos admitted teaching in Araullo University without asking for permission because it was unnecessary, and that he was only
handing a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage referred to him by petitioners VP for Academic Affairs. Moreover, he
argued that the demotion from Dean to faculty member was without legal basis and the non-renewal as Dean was arbitrary.
4. Petitioner, in its reply, offered two options for Carlos: (1) fulltime professor, w/o teaching loads outside; practice law prior written
approval (2) part time professor with 15 units, freedom to teach and practice law. Carlos failed to respond so petitioner reminded
him again of the options. When Carlos failed to reply, he wasnt assigned any teaching load for the next semester.
5. Oct 15, 2000: Carlos protested in the imposition of sanction against him arising from part-time teaching in another university,
saying it was a benefit he enjoyed as administrator and Dean, and even if it was punishable, according to the manual it should
only be by mere censure or oral reprimand.
6. Carlos filed complaint for ULP, ID (demotion to faculty member as constructive dismissal), and payment of backwages and
damages. Petitioner: they were only constrained to deprive Carlos of teaching load because he refused to abide with the rules.
7. LA: illegally dismissed, ordered to reinstate Carlos to former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges

8.
9.

immediately upon receipt of decision; issued writ of execution to implement decision. Petitioner reinstated Carlos in its payroll
only.
NLRC: set aside LA Decision and dismissed complaint but ordered to reinstate Carlos as full time professor of Law and
Accountancy. LA was incorrect when it reinstated Carlos to former position as Dean.
Petitioner filed a motion for clarification and/or partial reconsideration asking for a refund of the amounts Carlos received by way
of reinstatement.

ISSUE:
3. WON the subsequent reversal of the LAs findings mean that respondent should reimburse
petitioner all the salaries and benefits he received pursuant to the immediate execution of the
LAs erroneous decision ordering his reinstatement as Department Dean NO, NOT ENTITLED TO
REFUND

RULING: Petition DENIED. CA Decision AFFIRMED.

RATIO:
1.
It is not disputed that LA erred in ordering respondent's reinstatement as Dean. NLRC ruled that respondent
should have been merely reinstated as a full-time law professor, because the term of his appointment as Dean had long
expired. However, such mistake on the part of the LA cannot, in any way, alter the fact that during the pendency of the appeal of
his decision, his order for respondent's reinstatement as Dean was immediately executory, following Article 223 LC.1
2.
The pertinent law on the matter is not concerned with the wisdom or propriety of the LA's order of
reinstatement, for if it was, then it should have provided that the pendency of an appeal should stay its execution. After all, a
decision cannot be deemed irrefragable unless it attains finality.
3.
The opposite view in the Genuino case where the employer has the right to require the dismissed employee on
payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries he received (refund doctrine) would render inutile the rationale of reinstatement
pending appeal. It has illogical and unjust effects, as it would harm rather than help a dismissed employee.
4.
In this case, there is even more reason to hold the employee entitled to the salaries he received pending appeal,
because the NLRC did not reverse the LA's order of reinstatement, but merely declared the correct position to which respondent
is to be reinstated, i.e., that of full-time professor, and not as Dean.
5.
The manner of immediate reinstatement, pending appeal, or the promptness thereof is immaterial, as illustrated in:
(a) Situation 1: LA ruled for employee, reinstated; employer didnt immediately comply with LAs directive; on appeal, LA
decision is reversed employee is entitled to payment of salaries and allowances pending appeal
(b) Situation 2: (applied in this case) LA ruled for employee, reinstated; employer complied with LAs directive; on appeal, LA
decision is reversed employee not required to reimburse salaries he received, since hes still entitled to the payment of
salaries and allowances pending appeal

LANSANGAN and CENDANA v. AMKOR

Jan. 30, 2009 | Carpio-Morales, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Reinstatement as interim relief

1 Art. 223. - Appeal. 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 admitted back to work under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely
reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement
provided therein.

PETITIONER: Lunesa Lansangan and Rocita Cendana

RESPONDENT: Amkor Technology Philippines, Inc.
SUMMARY: Lansangan and Cendana were employees of Amkor who were found to steal
company time. They were dismissed. They filed for illegal dismissal and for reinstatement on
appeal. SC: Valid dismissal as there was valid cause (serious misconduct and fraud/ breach of
trust). They are also not entitled to reinstatement under Art223 and backwages because there
was no illegal dismissal.
DOCTRINE: Art. 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a
dismissed or separated employee while the case for illegal dismissal is
pending appeal. It doesnt apply where there is no finding of illegal
dismissal as in the present case.

FACTS:
An anonymous letter was sent to the General Manager of Amkor stating that supervisory employees
Lansangan and Cendana steal company time. During investigation, petitioners admitted their wrongdoing.
They were then dismissed for extremely serious offenses defined in its Code of Discipline. They filed for
illegal dismissal.
LA: Valid dismissal with serious misconduct and fraud or breach of trust as the valid cause. Guilty of
swiping another employees ID card or requesting another employee to swipe ones ID card to gain
personal advantage. HOWEVER, ordered their reinstatement without backwages as a measure of
equitable and compassionate relief due to show of remorse, harshness of penalty, prior unblemished
record, etc.
NLRC: Deleted the reinstatement aspect.
CA: Affirmed that petitioners were guilty of misconduct but ordered payment of their backwages.
Petitioners filed for reinstatement on appeal citing Roquero v Philippine Airlines and Article 223 2 of LC.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the petitioners were validly dismissed YES
2. WON Article 223of LC is applicable - NO

RULING: Petition denied. Valid dismissal. Not entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
RATIO:
1. Petitioners were validly dismissed as they committed dishonesty which is a form of serious
misconduct and fraud, or breach of trust.
2. Art. 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a dismissed or separated employee while
the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal. It doesnt apply where there is no finding of
illegal dismissal as in the present case.
Also, payment of backwages and other benefits is justified only if the employee was unjustly
dismissed. The petitioners were validly dismissed and so they are not entitled to reinstatement,
backwages and other benefits.

2 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 admitted back to
work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation
or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond
by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided therein.

INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC. v. ADONIS PIONILLA

August 28, 2013 | Perlas- Bernanbe, J. | MR of a Resolution of the SC | Backwages - Exceptions
PETITIONER: Integrated Microelectronics, Inc. (Alonso and Associates)
RESPONDENT:Adonis Pionilla(Banzuela and Associates)
SUMMARY:Pionilla lent his company ID to his relative in order to board the company shuttle, in violation
of the company rules and regulations which prohibited the lending of ones ID since the same is
considered a breach of its security rules and carries the penalty of dismissal.He was given a notice to
explain wherein he admitted to lending his ID. After conducting an investigation, Pionilla was dismissed.
He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. SC held that he was illegally dismissed, but due to the
circumstances, the award of backwages was deleted.
DOCTRINE:Exception to award of backwages: 1) When dismissal of employee would be too harsh a
penalty; and 2) when the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee.
FACTS:
4. NLRC: Reversed. Act of lending was willful
1. Pionilla was hired by IMI as a production
and intentional. Pionillas attitude in
worker on Nov 14, 1996. On May 5, 2005,
violating CRR could be treated as perverse
he received a notice requiring him to
for his failure to surrender his temporary
explain the incident where he was seen
ID despite locating the original one.
escorting a lady to board the company
5. CA: While the regulations were reasonable,
shuttle bus at Alabang Terminal. The bus
the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and
marshall reported that the lady wore a
not commensurate to the misdeed
company ID which serves as a free pass
committed. also, Pionilla worked for 9
for the shuttle bus, even if she was just a
years without any derogatory record. SC:
job applicant at IMI. Pionilla admitted he
Affirmed.
lent his ID to the lady, who was his
relative, to save on transportation
ISSUE/S:WoN the award of reinstatement and full
expenses, and apologized for his actions.
backwages is excessive, unfair and contrary to
2. The Conscience Committee investigated
existing principles of law and jurisprudence YES.
the matter where Pionilla admitted that he
had 2 IDs as he lost his original ID and was
RULING:PARTIALLY
GRANTED.
MODIFIED,
able to secure a temporary ID later.
deleting award of backwages.
Pionilla and his relative held separate IDs,
both in his name. He was found to have
RATIO:
violated Art. 6.12 of the Company RRs
1. General Rule: an illegally dismissed employee
(CRR) which prohibited the lending of
is entitled to reinstatement and (or separation
ones ID since the same is considered a
pay) and payment of full backwages.
breach of its security rules and carries the
2. Exception (reinstatement without backwages):
penalty of dismissal. He subsequently
a. Dismissal of employee would be too harsh
received a letter informing him of his
a penalty
dismissal from service. He filed a
- Guilt of the employee is substantially
complaint for illegal dismissal and
established, but the penalty of dismissal is
damages.
too drastic. In this case, the denial of
3. LA: Illegally dismissed. He was harshly
backwages would be a sufficient penalty
penalized since he did not breach security
for the employees infractions.
since his companion was not able to enter
b. Employer was in good faith in terminating
the company premises nor board the
the employee.
shuttle bus. The misdeed was not tainted
- Employer did not discriminately dismiss
with any wrongful intent. There was also
employee. The employers good faith
no dishonesty to be attributed to his act of
when clear under the circumstances, may
keeping his old ID as it was merely
preclude
or
diminish
recovery
of
incidental to the 1st offense of lending the
backwages.
company ID to another. Reinstatement +
3. In this case, the penalty of dismissal was too
backwages amounting to 417,818.78.

harsh for Pionillas infractions and IMI was in

good faith when it dismissed Pionilla as his
dereliction of its policy on ID usage was

honestly perceived to be a threat to the

companys security.