Purificacion v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Purificacion F. Ram was employed by JRS Business Corporation (JRS) as a counter-clerk trainee on June 11, 1991, and later appointed as a probationary employee for six months effective August 26, 1991. On February 13, 1992, JRS terminated her services, citing unsatisfactory performance, specifically violating company rules, abandoning her post, tardiness, absences, poor attitude, and inefficiency. The termination was based on a report by manager Roseller Layug, who recommended dismissal due to repeated violations despite demands to cease. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, violation of labor standards, and sought reinstatement, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, declaring her illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages and allowances amounting to P52,815.84, plus salary differentials of P2,015.00 and attorney's fees. Upon appeal by JRS, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, affirming reinstatement but deleting the award of backwages and attorney's fees. The NLRC's denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration led to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner assails the NLRC's decision for grave abuse of discretion, arguing she is entitled to payroll backwages from the Labor Arbiter's decision until actual reinstatement, as JRS failed to reinstate her and thus implicitly chose payroll reinstatement. She also contends that the NLRC erred in deleting the backwages and attorney's fees despite the finding of illegal dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's payroll backwages despite the immediately executory nature of the Labor Arbiter's reinstatement order. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deleting the backwages and attorney's fees awarded by the Labor Arbiter despite the finding of illegal dismissal.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The assailed resolution and decision of the NLRC are set aside, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated, except for the prayer for salaries through payroll reinstatement, which is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of payroll backwages and the necessity of a writ of execution: The Court held that while the reinstatement aspect of a Labor Arbiter's decision is immediately executory pending appeal, it is not self-executory. A writ of execution is imperative, either issued motu proprio or upon motion of the interested party, to implement the reinstatement order. The employer's option to reinstate the employee either by actual admission back to work or by payroll reinstatement is exercised only upon service of this writ. In the absence of a writ of execution and its service, the employer is not formally put on notice to exercise this option. The Court found that petitioner was negligent in pursuing the enforcement of the Labor Arbiter's order, as the record was bereft of evidence that she endeavored to have the order immediately enforced through a motion for execution. Consequently, due to her own inaction, her prayer for payroll backwages was denied. On the deletion of backwages and attorney's fees: The Court found that while petitioner committed infractions such as tardiness and leaving her post without permission, these were minor and did not constitute serious misconduct that would warrant dismissal. The NLRC's decision to reinstate petitioner but without backwages was based on the principle that the penalty must be commensurate to the offense. However, the Court distinguished the present case from those where backwages were deleted, noting that the infractions were minor and that the denial of due process to petitioner by JRS negated the employer's good faith. The Court reasoned that the period from dismissal up to the Labor Arbiter's decision (July 1993) was already covered by backwages, and the subsequent period without backwages until actual reinstatement would serve as sufficient punishment for her infractions. The Court also reinstated the award of attorney's fees, finding that the Labor Arbiter's award was based on Article 2208(7) of the Civil Code, which allows recovery of attorney's fees in actions for recovery of wages, and that JRS had withheld part of petitioner's wages.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution is imperative to implement a Labor Arbiter's order of reinstatement, even if immediately executory pending appeal, and the employer's option for payroll reinstatement is only exercised upon service of such writ. Failure to pursue a motion for execution can lead to the denial of payroll backwages.