Buenviaje v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, former employees of Cottonway Marketing Corp. (Cottonway) hired as promo girls, were terminated in October 1994 due to alleged business losses. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary, and non-payment of benefits. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter initially found the retrenchment valid but ordered separation pay and proportionate 13th month pay. The NLRC reversed this, ordering reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages from withholding of salaries until actual reinstatement. Cottonway's motion for reconsideration was denied. Cottonway then sent notices for petitioners to return to work, claiming they failed to do so and subsequently sent termination letters. Cottonway's petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court was dismissed. Petitioners moved for execution of the NLRC decision. Labor Arbiter Protasio later issued an order limiting backwages to the time of receipt of the termination notice due to alleged refusal to report. The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter's order, deeming its March 26, 1996 decision final and executory. Cottonway filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted Cottonway's petition, ruling that reinstatement was impossible due to the supervening event of petitioners' refusal to return to work, thus limiting backwages to the time of receipt of the termination notice. Petitioners seek to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in reversing the NLRC resolutions and reinstating the Labor Arbiter's order. Whether the petitioners' failure to immediately report for work after receiving the notice to return constituted abandonment justifying termination. Whether the backwages awarded to the petitioners should be computed from the time of their illegal dismissal until their actual reinstatement or until the finality of the decision, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in limiting the backwages.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 13, 2000 and Resolution dated February 13, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 53204 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The records of the case are remanded to the Labor Arbiter for execution in accordance with the Decision of the NLRC dated March 26, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gravely abused discretion: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The NLRC's decision dated March 26, 1996, had become final and executory after the Supreme Court dismissed Cottonway's petition for certiorari and denied its motion for reconsideration. It is a fundamental rule that a final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable. The Court of Appeals' act of modifying this final judgment based on a claimed supervening event, without affording petitioners due process, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The issuance of a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment is a ministerial duty of the Labor Arbiter, and the writ must conform strictly to the judgment. On the issue of abandonment and valid termination: The Court held that petitioners' alleged failure to return to work did not amount to abandonment justifying dismissal. To establish abandonment, an employer must prove both the failure to report for work without justifiable reason and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. In this case, Cottonway sent notices for petitioners to return to work three months after the NLRC decision, giving them only five days to comply. Petitioners' counsel replied that they were not in a position to comply immediately as the case was not yet finally disposed of, and expressed willingness to discuss satisfaction of the NLRC decision. Cottonway did not provide a reasonable time for explanation or compliance, nor did it prove a clear intention by the petitioners to sever their employment. The Court viewed the notice as a scheme to remove petitioners. On the computation of backwages: The Court agreed with the petitioners that backwages should be computed from the time of their illegal dismissal until their actual reinstatement, or until the finality of the decision if reinstatement is no longer possible, as mandated by the final and executory NLRC decision. The Court of Appeals erred in limiting the backwages based on a supposed supervening event (refusal to return to work) which was not a valid ground for termination. Under R.A. 6715, illegally dismissed employees are entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and benefits, computed from the time their compensation was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement. The ruling in Bustamante v. NLRC was cited, emphasizing that 'full backwages' means without deducting earnings derived elsewhere during the period of illegal dismissal, adhering to the legislative intent to provide greater benefits to workers.
Main Doctrine
The failure of illegally dismissed employees to immediately report for work upon receiving a notice to return, especially when their counsel indicated a willingness to discuss satisfaction of the NLRC decision, does not constitute abandonment justifying termination. Backwages should be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement or finality of the decision if reinstatement is no longer possible, as a final and executory decision ordering reinstatement and full backwages cannot be modified by a claim of supervening event without due process.