Quijano v. Bartolabac
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Dandy Quijano filed a complaint against Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac and Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant alleged that respondents violated his constitutional right to due process by failing to execute a final and executory judgment of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 126561, which ordered his reinstatement to his former position as warehouseman at Mercury Drug Corporation. Procedural History: The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Quijano, ordering his reinstatement. Despite this, Labor Arbiter Bartolabac issued an order awarding backwages and separation pay instead of reinstatement. The Supreme Court directed Bartolabac to comply with its decision and explain his actuations. Bartolabac then issued an alias writ of execution but subsequently issued another order amending it, assigning Quijano to a different position. Commissioner Quimpo later overturned Bartolabac's order, directing payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. Quijano alleged that his motions were disregarded, he was not furnished copies of appeal memoranda, and mandatory temporary reinstatement was not provided. Quimpo issued a resolution ordering separation pay plus backwages, despite Quijano's assertion that Quimpo should have inhibited himself. The Petition: Complainant asserted that his constitutional right to due process was violated. Respondents Bartolabac and Quimpo, in their comments, argued that the complaint was a rehash of previous complaints, that they acted within their jurisdiction, and that Quimpo's actions were in good faith to implement the Court's directive. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the complaint, but the Supreme Court treated the motion for reconsideration as a petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Labor Arbiter Bartolabac and Commissioner Quimpo are liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by deviating from the final and executory judgment of the Supreme Court. Whether the respondents violated complainant's constitutional right to due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondents Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac and Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. They were suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of liability for deviating from the Supreme Court's judgment: The Court reiterated that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. Labor Arbiter Bartolabac and Commissioner Quimpo had no discretion to depart from the Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 126561, which unequivocally ordered complainant's reinstatement to his former position or a substantially equivalent one. Their duty was to execute the judgment to the letter, and they possessed no authority to change the Court's order. The Court found it inconceivable that a company as large as Mercury Drug Corporation could not accommodate the complainant in one of its numerous rank-and-file positions, especially when the Court had already discounted the corporation's and the labor arbiter's reasons for the infeasibility of reinstatement. The deviation from the final and executory judgment by awarding separation pay instead of reinstatement constituted a violation of their mandated duties. On the violation of complainant's constitutional right to due process: The Court emphasized that employment is considered a property right that cannot be taken away without due process. By failing to implement the reinstatement order, respondents wittingly or unwittingly dispossessed the complainant of his source of living. This act also ran afoul of the public policy enshrined in the Constitution, which ensures the protection of workers' rights and the promotion of their welfare. The respondents' actions, in disregarding the final and executory judgment of the Supreme Court and failing to implement the reinstatement order, deprived the complainant of his property right without due process of law. The Court noted that the NLRC's overturning of the reinstatement order and the full satisfaction of the monetary award only three years after the judgment's finality further underscored the violation.
Main Doctrine
Labor Arbiters and Commissioners of the NLRC do not have any latitude to depart from a final and executory decision of the Supreme Court. Their duty is to order and implement the execution of the judgment to the letter, as they have no discretion on this matter nor the authority to change the Court's order. Failure to do so violates the constitutional right to due process and the public policy ensuring the protection of workers' rights.