Pfizer v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Geraldine L. Velasco (Velasco), employed by Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer) as a Professional Health Care Representative since 1992, went on extended leave due to a high-risk pregnancy. While on leave, Pfizer issued Velasco a "Show-cause Notice" dated June 25, 2003, alleging violations of company work rules regarding unauthorized deals and withdrawals, and placed her under preventive suspension. Velasco denied the charges and submitted explanations. Subsequently, Pfizer issued a "Second Show-cause Notice" based on an affidavit alleging Velasco's involvement in printing discount coupons, and a "Third Show-cause Notice" based on affidavits from Mercury Drug Branch Managers. Velasco filed a complaint for illegal suspension with money claims. Pfizer proceeded to terminate Velasco's employment on July 29, 2003. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter declared Velasco's dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement with full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal's illegality but deleted the award for damages, modifying the attorney's fees calculation. Pfizer appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a Decision dated November 23, 2005, reversed the NLRC and declared Velasco's dismissal valid, finding it in accordance with the two-notice rule and due process, and for just cause. Velasco moved for reconsideration, and the CA, in a Resolution dated October 23, 2006, affirmed the validity of the dismissal but ordered Pfizer to pay Velasco her wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter's Decision until the CA's Decision. Pfizer's motion for partial reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated April 10, 2007. Velasco filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) assailing the CA's dismissal of her complaint, which was denied. Pfizer then filed the instant petition assailing the CA Resolutions ordering payment of wages. The Petition: Pfizer seeks to annul the CA Resolutions ordering it to pay Velasco wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter's decision until the CA's decision, arguing that it was not unjustified in refusing reinstatement and that Velasco refused to return to work. Pfizer contends that the ruling in Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. is not applicable and proposes that the ruling in Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission should be followed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it ordered Pfizer to pay Velasco wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering her reinstatement until November 23, 2005, when the Court of Appeals rendered its decision declaring Velasco's dismissal valid; and whether Pfizer's return-to-work directive constituted a valid offer of reinstatement under the same terms and conditions. Whether Velasco's claim for separation pay absolved Pfizer from its obligation to reinstate or pay wages, and whether the accrual of wages until the CA's decision constituted unjust enrichment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated October 23, 2006, and April 10, 2007, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of wages pending appeal and the validity of the return-to-work directive: The Court reiterated the principle that an order of reinstatement pending appeal is immediately self-executory. Pfizer's directive to Velasco to report for work on July 1, 2005, was not a faithful compliance with the reinstatement order. The Court rejected Pfizer's contention that the ruling in Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission should apply, clarifying that the Genuino ruling was a stray posture and reaffirmed the prevailing principle established in Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. and other cases. This principle mandates that even if the reinstatement order is reversed on appeal, the employer must still pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the appeal period until reversal, and the employee is not required to refund these amounts. On Velasco's claim for separation pay and the accrual of wages: Velasco's counsel's letter expressing an option for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement did not absolve Pfizer from its obligation to reinstate or pay wages. The Court concluded that Pfizer's liability for backwages continued to accrue from December 5, 2003, the date of the Labor Arbiter's decision, until November 23, 2005, the date of the CA's decision. The payment of these wages was deemed not to constitute unjust enrichment on Velasco's part, given the circumstances.
Main Doctrine
An order of reinstatement pending appeal is immediately self-executory and the employer is obligated to pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court, without fear of refunding what has been received, even if the dismissal is ultimately found to be legal.