Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
9 11
10 12 13
It is clear from the foregoing that at the time the Zamora,14[14] we held that if an employee was reinstated
August 21, 1992 NLRC decision was promulgated, the rule during the appeal period but such reinstatement was
commonly adhered to was for a writ of execution to be reversed with finality, the employee is not required to
issued, either motu proprio or on motion of an interested reimburse whatever salary he received from the employer.
party, before the employer may be compelled to admit the Justice and equity require that we apply the same doctrine to
employee back to work or to reinstate him in the payroll, on this case.
pain of being liable for the employees salaries. However, at
the time the Courts Decision in San Miguel Corporation v.
NLRC was promulgated on July 23, 1998, the Pioneer case
was already the prevailing rule on the matter and should have
been read into the case. Thus, upon its receipt of our July 23,
1998 Decision affirming the NLRC decision, SMC should have
immediately opted either to re-admit petitioners or merely
reinstate them in the payroll.
14
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision three (3) years after deducting the sums that they received, introduced in the aforequoted provision cannot be applied to
respectively, from SMC as Retirement Pay the decision of the labor arbiter rendered three (3) months
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77489 dated July 5,
Petitioners, in an effort to cause the amendment of the NLRC before R.A. No. 6715 had become a law. It was under this
2005 and its Resolution dated April 11, 2006 are AFFIRMED Decision, filed a Motion for Computation and Satisfaction of jurisprudential setting that the August 21, 1992 decision of
Back Salaries, praying for the issuance of an Order directing the NLRC ordering the reinstatement of petitioners was
with the MODIFICATION that petitioners are not required to
the private respondent SMC to pay them the sums of promulgated.
refund the amounts received by them from respondent San P9,218,205.00 and P5,268,455.50 respectively, representing In the line of cases following Inciong, the Court consistently
purportedly their back salaries and other benefits from held that immediate reinstatement is mandated and is not
Miguel Corporation on account of the reinstatement order of
September 9, 1992 up to November 1999 invoking the stayed by the fact that the employer has appealed or posted
the National Labor Relations Commission as affirmed by the Supreme Court ruling in Pioner Texturizing Corporation v. a cash or surety bond pending appeal. However, in the
NLRC, granting full back wages to illegally dismissed Maranaw case, the Court declared that although the
Court in its Decision dated July 23, 1998. No pronouncement
employees. Surprisingly, the Executive Labor issued an reinstatement aspect of the labor arbiters decision is
as to costs. Order granting the petitioners Motion for Computation of immediately executory, it does not follow that it is self-
Back Salaries. executory. There must be a writ of execution which may be
issued motu proprio or on motion of an interested party.
Petitioners filed another Motion to direct private respondent It is clear from the foregoing that at the time the August 21,
1992 NLRC decision was promulgated, the rule commonly
SMC to comply strictly with the NLRC Decision relative to adhered to was for a writ of execution to be issued, either
SO ORDERED. motu proprio or on motion of an interested party, before the
their reinstatement which the Executive Labor Arbiter
employer may be compelled to admit the employee back to
granted. Private respondent SMC timely appealed from both work or to reinstate him in the payroll, on pain of being liable
Case Digest
Orders to the NLRC which promulgated a Decision declaring for the employees salaries. However, at the time the Courts
Decision in San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC was
that complainants are not entitled to backwages. The Court of promulgated on July 23, 1998, the Pioneer case was already
EDMUNDO Y. TORRES, JR. and MANUEL C. CASTELLANO,
petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Appeals upheld the decision of the NLRC. Hence, this instant the prevailing rule on the matter and should have been read
COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, and into the case. Thus, upon its receipt of our July 23, 1998
petition. Decision affirming the NLRC decision, SMC should have
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.
[G.R. No. 172584 . November 28, 2008] immediately opted either to re-admit petitioners or merely
reinstate them in the payroll.
ISSUE: Be that as it may, the retirement age of 60 years already
FACTS:
Petitioners were among the many employees of private attained by petitioners as early as 1989 for Edmundo Torres,
respondent SMC who retired from employment pursuant to Whether or not petitioners are entitled to back salaries from Jr. and 1990 for Manuel Castellano had set in motion the
private respondents Retirement Plan. Believing that they provisions of SMCs Retirement Plan which is a valid
September 9, 1992 until they are effectively reinstated to their
were constructively forced to retire from employment and management prerogative. Ultimately, therefore, the Court of
that their separation from employment was illegal petitioners previous employment? Appeals was correct in ruling that the reinstatement of
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SMC. The Labor petitioners is no longer feasible. SMC should accordingly
Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing all the claims of the take formal steps, in accordance with its Retirement Plan, to
HELD: effect petitioners retirement.
petitioners against the respondent SMC for lack of merit. On
No. In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that at
appeal, the NLRC, on August 21, 1992, handed down a
the time petitioners were dismissed in 1984, R.A. No. 6715,
Decision reversing in part that of the Labor Arbiter and Even so, petitioners should not be compelled to return the
which amended Art. 223 of the Labor Code, had not yet been
ordered SMC to immediately reinstate petitioners and to pay
enacted. Further, the Courts ruling in Maranaw Hotel Resort salaries and benefits already received by them on account of
their back salaries. Private respondent SMC appealed
Corp. v. NLRC, holding that in the absence of an order for the
through a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court which the order for reinstatement adjudged by the NLRC and
issuance of a writ of execution on the reinstatement aspect,
rendered a Decision affirming in toto that of the NLRC. The
the employer is under no legal obligation to admit its illegally affirmed by the Court. In Air Philippines Corporation v.
Decision of the Supreme Court became final and executory
dismissed employee back to work, was declared by the
and as a consequence, private respondent SMC partially Zamora, we held that if an employee was reinstated during
appellate court as still controlling.
complied with the Decision by paying the monetary awards
In Inciong v. NLRC, the Court declared that in the absence of the appeal period but such reinstatement was reversed with
in favor of the petitioners representing their back salaries for
a provision giving it retroactive effect, the amendment
finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received from the employer. Justice and equity
require that we apply the same doctrine to this case.