G.R. No.

181490

April 23, 2014

MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION AND EDGARDO A. BAUTISTA, Petitioners,

vs.
JOSELITO A. CARO
FACTS:
1.

CARO filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims for 13th and 14th month pay, bonuses
and other benefits, as well as the payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
10

He was hired as its Logistics Officer and was assigned at Mirants corporate office in Pasay City. There was a
random drug test conducted in the company but Caro did not submit himself Because he averred that at
around 11:30 a.m. of the same day, he received a phone call from his wifes colleague who informed him that a
bombing incident occurred near his wifes work station in Tel Aviv, Israel where his wife was then working as a
caregiver.
He immediately called up Cecilia, a member of Drug Watch Committee to explain the reasons for his failure to
submit himself to the random drug test that day. He also proposed that he would submit to a drug test the
following day at his own expense.he never heard from Cecilia again.
CARO received a Show Cause Notice from corporation through Jaime Dulot (Dulot), his immediate
supervisor, requiring him to explain in writing why he should not be charged with "unjustified refusal to submit to
random drug testing." The investigating Panel issued an Investigating Report finding respondent guilty of
"unjustified refusal to submit to random drug testing" and recommended a penalty of four working weeks
suspension without pay.
15

18

2.

LA: NO JUST CAUSE TO TEMRINATE.

the quitclaim purportedly executed by respondent was not a bona fide quitclaim.

Order: reinstatement and backwages and P3,000,000.00 as and by way of moral and exemplary
damages, and to pay complainant the amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total awards as
and by way of attorneys fees.

CAROS omission merely resulted to a "failure" to submit to the said drug test and not an "unjustified refusal."
3.

NLRC:

UNJUSIFIED REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO DRUG TEST

CARO submitted a facsimile which he allegedly received from his wife's colleague confirming that she
called and informed him of the bombing incident. However, a perusal of said facsimile x x x reveals
that the same cannot be given any probative value because, as correctly observed by [petitioners], it
can barely be read and upon inquiry with PLDT, the international area code of Israel which is 00972
should appear on the face of the facsimile if indeed said facsimile originated from Israel

CARO could not present proof of his presence at the Israel Embassy on said time and date.

BUT granted financial assistance to respondent on equitable grounds:10 years of service with
petitioner corporation without any record of violation of company policies, the NLRC ordered petitioner
corporation to pay respondent financial assistance equivalent to one-half (1/2) month pay for every
year of service.

NLRC DENIED BOTH MRS OF THE PARTIES

4.

CERTIORARI BEFORE CA:

The award of moral and exemplary damages is without basis due to lack of bad faith on the part of the
corporation which merely acted within its management prerogative.

CA denied petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. It ruled that the arguments in the
motion for reconsideration were already raised in their past pleadings.

5. SC
A. WON the petition for certiorari filed by CARO with the CA should have been summarily dismissed as it
lacked the requisite verification and certification against forum shopping under Sections 4 and 5, Rule
7 of the Rules
CONTENTION OF MIRANT: failure to subscribe the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
before a Notary Public, it cannot be considered to have been made under oath. Accordingly, such omission is
fatal to the entire petition for not being properly verified and certified.
SC: This jurisdiction has adopted in the field of labor protection a liberal stance towards the construction of the
rules of procedure in order to serve the ends of substantial justice.
If we sustain the argument of petitioners in the case at bar that the petition for certiorari should have been
dismissed outright by the CA, the NLRC decision would have reached finality and respondent would have lost
his remedy and denied his right to be protected against illegal dismissal under the Labor Code, as amended.

B. WON petition for certiorari before the CA should have been considered moot as respondent had
already previously executed a quitclaim discharging petitioner corporation from all his monetary claims.
SC:
-

Quitclaims executed by laborers are ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of their legal
rights, especially in this case where the evidence on record shows that the amount stated in the
quitclaim exactly corresponds to the amount claimed as unpaid wages by respondent under Annex
A of his Reply filed with the Labor Arbiter.
52

53

54

Prima facie, this creates a false impression that respondents claims have already been settled by
petitioner corporation discharging the latter from all of respondents monetary claims. In truth and in
fact, however, the amount paid under the subject quitclaim represented the salaries of respondent that
remained unpaid at the time of his termination not the amounts being claimed in the case at bar.

The quitclaim was undated and not even notarized although signed

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 26, 2007
and the Resolution dated January 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 96153 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that only petitioner corporation is found GUILTY of the illegal dismissal of respondent Joselito A. Caro.
Petitioner Edgardo A. Bautista is not held personally liable as then President of petitioner corporation at the
time of the illegal dismissal.

G.R. No. 195227

April 21, 2014

FROILAN M. BERGONIO, JR
vs.
SOUTH EAST ASIAN AIRLINES and IRENE DORNIER
FACTS:
Proceedings before LA:
petitioners filed before the LA a complaint for illegal dismissal and illegal suspension with prayer for
reinstatement against respondents South East Asian Airlines (SEAIR) and Irene Dornier as SEAIRs President
LA: petitioners illegally dismissed and ordered the respondents, among others, to immediately reinstate the
petitioners with full backwages.
petitioners filed before the LA a Motion for issuance of Writ of Execution for their immediate reinstatement.
the respondents filed an opposition to the petitioners motion for execution. They claimed that the relationship
between them and the petitioners had already been strained because of the petitioners threatening text
messages, thus precluding the latters reinstatement.
7

respondents issued a Memorandum directing the petitioners to report for work but petitioners failed to report
for work on the appointed date
11

Proceedings before the NLRC

dismissed the respondents appeal for non-perfection, denied the respondents motion for recon, respondents
filed before the CA a petition for certiorari
The NLRC issued an Entry of Judgment on declaring its November 29, 2006 resolution final and executory.
The LA also issued another writ of execution. A Notice of Garnishment was thereafter issued to the
respondents depositary bank.
14

Proceedings before the CA

dismissal valid and awarded them P30,000.00 as nominal damages for the respondents failure to observe due
process
reinstatement aspect of the LAs decision is immediately executory even pending appeal, such that the
employer is obliged to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until
the decision (finding the employee illegally dismissed including the reinstatement order) is reversed by a higher
court.
Proceedings before the NLRC
Proceedings before the SC
1.

We GRANT the petition.

Preliminary considerations: jurisdictional
limitations of the Courts Rule 45 review of
the CAs Rule 65 decision in labor cases

In a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, what we review are the legal errors that the CA may have
committed in the assailed decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors that we undertake in an
original certiorari action.
Within this narrow scope of our Rule 45 review, the question that we ask is: Did the CA correctly determine
whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?
20

In addition, the Courts jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari is limited to resolving only
questions of law.
CASE AT BAR: whether the petitioners may recover the accrued wages prior to the CAs reversal of the LAs
May 31, 2005 decision?
Resolution of this question of law, however, is inextricably linked with the largely factual issue of
whether the accrued wages should be computed until December 17, 2008 when the CA reversed the illegal
dismissal findings of the LA or only until February 24, 2006 when the petitioners were supposed to report for
work per the February 21, 2006 Memorandum. In either case, the determination of this factual issue
presupposes another factual issue, i.e., whether the delay in the execution of the reinstatement order was due
to the respondents fault. As questions of fact, they are proscribed by our Rule 45 jurisdiction;
we generally cannot address these factual issues except to the extent necessary to determine whether
the CA correctly found the NLRC in grave abuse of discretion in affirming the release of the garnished
amount
The jurisdictional limitations of our Rule 45 review of the CAs Rule 65 decision in labor cases,
notwithstanding, we resolve this petitions factual issues for we find legal errors in the CAs decision.

2.

Nature of the reinstatement aspect of the

LAs decision on a finding of illegal
dismissal

Otherwise stated, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the LA is entitled to receive
wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which reinstatement is immediately executory. Unless the
appellate tribunal issues a restraining order, the LA is duty bound to implement the order of reinstatement and
the employer has no option but to comply with it.
24

25

Moreover, and equally worth emphasizing, is that an order of reinstatement issued by the LA is self-executory,
i.e., the dismissed employee need not even apply for and the LA need not even issue a writ of execution to
trigger the employers duty to reinstate the dismissed employee.
In short, therefore, with respect to decisions reinstating employees, the law itself has determined a sufficiently
overwhelming reason for its immediate and automatic execution even pending appeal. The employer is
duty-bound to reinstate the employee, failing which, the employer is liable instead to pay the dismissed
employees salary. The Courts consistent and prevailing treatment and interpretation of the reinstatement order
as immediately enforceable, in fact, merely underscores the right to security of tenure of employees that the
Constitution protects.
29

30

3.

The employer is obliged to pay the

dismissed employees salary if he
refuses to reinstate until actual
reinstatement or reversal by a higher
tribunal; circumstances that may bar an
employee from receiving the accrued wages

After the LAs decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employers duty to reinstate the dismissed
employee is effectively terminated. This means that an employer is no longer obliged to keep the employee in
the actual service or in the payroll. The employee, in turn, is not required to return the wages that he had
received prior to the reversal of the LAs decision.
31

The reversal by a higher tribunal of the LAs finding (of illegal dismissal), notwithstanding, an employer, who,
despite the LAs order of reinstatement, did not reinstate the employee during the pendency of the appeal up to
the reversal by a higher tribunal may still be held liable for the accrued wages of the employee, i.e., the unpaid
salary accruing up to the time the higher tribunal reverses the decision.
32

GENERAL RULE: employee may still recover the accrued wages up to and despite the reversal by the
higher tribunal. This entitlement of the employee to the accrued wages proceeds from the immediate and selfexecutory nature of the reinstatement aspect of the LAs decision.
EXCEPTION: an employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages if shown that the delay in
enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer.
To determine whether an employee is thus barred, two tests must be satisfied:
(1) actual delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal;
and
(2) the delay must not be due to the employers unjustified act or omission. Note that under the second test, the
delay must be without the employers fault. If the delay is due to the employers unjustified refusal, the
employer may still be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the LAs decision.

FIRST TEST: THERE WAS actual delay and the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior
to its reversal
From the time the respondents received copy of the LAs decision, and the issuance of the writ of
execution, until the CA reversed this decision on December 17, 2008, the respondents had not
reinstated the petitioners, either by actual reinstatement or in the payroll.

SECOND TEST: delay was not due to the employers unjustified act or omission
Respondents filed several pleadings to suspend the execution of the LAs reinstatement order. It shows a
determined effort on the respondents part to prevent or suspend the execution of the reinstatement pending
appeal.
2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC (2005 NLRC Rules), employers are required to submit a
report of compliance within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the LAs decision, noncompliance with
which signifies a clear refusal to reinstate.
34

Arguably, the 2005 NLRC Rules took effect only on January 7, 2006; hence, the respondents could not have
been reasonably expected to comply with this duty that was not yet in effect when the LA rendered its decision
(finding illegal dismissal) and issued the writ of execution in 2005. Nevertheless, when the LA issued the
February 16, 2006 alias writ of execution and the April 24, 2007 writ of execution, the 2005 NLRC Rules
was already in place such that the respondents had become duty-bound to submit the required
compliance report; their noncompliance with this rule all the more showed a clear and determined refusal to
reinstate.