Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alejandro Roquero and Rene Pabayo, ground equipment mechanics of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), were caught possessing and using Methampethamine Hydrochloride (shabu) in a raid conducted by PAL security officers and NARCOM personnel. They claimed they were instigated by a certain Jojie Alipato, who was allegedly placed on the premises by PAL management to instigate drug use. Roquero and Pabayo were subjected to physical examinations, which showed they were positive for drugs, and executed written confessions without counsel. They received a notice of administrative charge for violating the PAL Code of Discipline and were placed under preventive suspension. In their reply, they asserted instigation and questioned Alipato's lack of arrest and employment record. Procedural History: PAL dismissed Roquero and Pabayo. They filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal but awarded separation pay and attorney's fees. While on appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Roquero and Pabayo were acquitted in a criminal case for possession and use of a regulated drug on the ground of instigation. The NLRC ruled in favor of the complainants, finding PAL guilty of instigation and ordering reinstatement without backwages. PAL filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. During the pendency, PAL and Pabayo entered into a compromise agreement, leading to the dismissal of the case with respect to Pabayo. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision upholding Roquero's dismissal but denying separation pay and attorney's fees. Roquero's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Roquero filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, raising issues regarding the employer's responsibility for instigated actions, the halting of executory reinstatement orders by appeals to higher courts, and the employer's liability for salary during the period of refusal to reinstate.
Issue(s)
Whether the instigated employee shall be solely responsible for an action arising from the instigation perpetrated by the employer, especially when the employee's position involves the safety of human lives. Whether the executory nature of a labor tribunal's order, particularly reinstatement, can be halted by a petition filed in higher courts without a restraining order or preliminary injunction. Whether an employer who refused to reinstate an employee despite a writ of execution would be liable to pay the salary of the subject employee from the time of the reinstatement order up to the reversal of the decision.
Ruling
The dismissal of petitioner Roquero is AFFIRMED. Respondent PAL is ordered to pay the wages to which Roquero is entitled from the time the reinstatement order was issued until the finality of this decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of instigation and employee responsibility: The Court held that while instigation may be a defense against criminal liability, it cannot be used as a shield against dismissal from employment. Roquero was found guilty of serious misconduct for possessing and using shabu, a violation of the PAL Code of Discipline. The Court emphasized that drugs can damage mental faculties, rendering an employee tasked with aircraft maintenance unfit for duty due to the potential for great loss of lives and properties. Roquero took the drugs fully knowing it was prohibited and while on duty, thus, he had no right to be reinstated to his position. The Court reiterated that procedural due process was complied with, as PAL provided the twin-notice requirement. On the executory nature of reinstatement orders: The Court affirmed that Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, and Section 2 of the NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals provide that an order of reinstatement by the Labor Arbiter is immediately executory, even pending appeal. The law's rationale is a compassionate policy to protect the working man and underscore labor as a primary social and economic force. The immediate implementation of a reinstatement order pending appeal is a saving act designed to stop a continuing threat or danger to the survival of the dismissed employee and his family. Unless a restraining order is issued, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the order of reinstatement. On employer liability for refusal to reinstate: The Court ruled that the unjustified refusal of an employer to reinstate a dismissed employee, despite an order of reinstatement, entitles the employee to payment of salaries from the time the employer failed to reinstate him until the finality of the decision. In this case, PAL failed to reinstate Roquero or place him on payroll despite the NLRC's order. Therefore, PAL must pay Roquero the salary he is entitled to, as if he had been reinstated, from the time of the NLRC's decision until the finality of the Supreme Court's decision. The Court reiterated that technicalities have no room in labor cases, and the Rules of Court are applied only suppletorily to effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code, not to defeat them. Even if the reinstatement order is reversed on appeal, the employer is still obligated to pay wages during the appeal period until reversal by the higher court.
Main Doctrine
Instigation may be a defense against criminal liability but not against dismissal from employment, especially when the position involves the safety of human lives. An order of reinstatement pending appeal is immediately executory, and unjustified refusal by the employer entitles the employee to payment of salaries.