Union v. Bank of the Philippine Islands
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Zenaida Uy (Uy), a bank teller at Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), had her services terminated on December 14, 1995, for gross disrespect/discourtesy, insubordination, and absence without leave. Uy, along with the BPI Employees Union-Metro Manila (the Union), filed a case for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: The Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) initially ruled in favor of Uy, declaring her dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full back wages and benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Court of Appeals (CA) modified this, ordering separation pay instead of reinstatement and limiting back wages to three years. This Court, in G.R. No. 137863, modified the CA's decision by ordering reinstatement and full back wages from dismissal until actual reinstatement. After this decision became final and executory, Uy sought execution, with her computation based on current wage levels and including interim increases and benefits. BPI disputed this, arguing the computation should be based on the salary at the time of dismissal. The VA agreed with Uy's computation, ordering a substantial amount. BPI filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the VA. The CA, in its Amended Decision, ruled that back wages should be computed based on the salary at the time of dismissal plus regular allowances received at that time, excluding interim increases and certain benefits not proven to be received at dismissal. The CA also affirmed the award of attorney's fees and held that its TRO had restrained Uy's reinstatement. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The consolidated petitions sought modification of the CA's Amended Decision regarding the computation of back wages and other monetary awards.
Issue(s)
Whether the March 31, 2005 Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 137863 reinstated the December 31, 1997 Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator awarding full back wages including all benefits under the CBA. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the award of certain CBA benefits (CBA signing bonus, medicine allowance, medical and doctor’s allowance, dental care allowance) for lack of proof. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the award for the monetary conversion of vacation and sick leave. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by it covered the reinstatement aspect of this Court’s final decision. Whether BPI's resort to certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was proper. Whether a 12% legal interest per annum should be imposed on the monetary awards. Whether BPI's allegation that Uy's/Union's petition was not properly served on the lower court is valid. Whether Uy is entitled to teller’s functional allowance. Whether the award of attorney's fees is proper.
Ruling
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 178699 and 178735 are both PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated July 4, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92631 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The back wages of Zenaida Uy should be computed based on her Basic Monthly Salary, Cost of Living Allowance, Financial Assistance, and Quarterly Bonus, with ₱10,895.00 as the base figure (her salary rate at the time of dismissal), computed from December 14, 1995, up to her reinstatement on August 1, 2006. She is also entitled to Teller’s Functional Allowance and Holiday Pay, based on the rate at the time of her dismissal. Attorney’s Fees at 10% of the total award and interest at 12% per annum on the total awards from the finality of the Decision in G.R. No. 137863 until full payment are also awarded. The award for the monetary conversion of vacation and sick leave is deleted. The Voluntary Arbitrator is ORDERED TO RECOMPUTE the amounts due to Zenaida Uy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the reinstatement of the VA's Decision: The Court held that the March 31, 2005 Decision in G.R. No. 137863 did not reinstate the Voluntary Arbitrator's December 31, 1997 Decision awarding full back wages including all CBA benefits. Instead, it modified the CA's decision by awarding full back wages from dismissal until actual reinstatement, consistent with Article 279 of the Labor Code as amended by R.A. 6715. The Court clarified that "full backwages" means without qualification or deduction, but jurisprudence dictates that the base figure is the wage rate at the time of dismissal, unqualified by subsequent increases or benefits received by co-workers not dismissed. Therefore, interim salary increases and CBA benefits not proven to be received at the time of dismissal were correctly excluded by the CA. On the deletion of certain CBA benefits: The Court affirmed the CA's deletion of the CBA signing bonus, medicine allowance, medical and doctor’s allowance, and dental care allowance. This was because these benefits were not proven to have been granted to Uy at the time of her dismissal. The principle of "he who alleges must prove" applies, and BPI presented no evidence to substantiate its claims regarding Uy's status at the time of dismissal. On the deletion of vacation and sick leave cash conversion: The Court disagreed with the CA's pronouncement that entitlement to vacation and sick leave cash conversion did not need to be proven. It clarified that this benefit is not statutory but voluntarily granted, thus requiring proof of existence and entitlement. The CBA presented, covering a period after Uy's dismissal, did not prove that such a benefit was granted prior to 2001. Therefore, Uy failed to prove her entitlement as a matter of right. On the TRO restraining reinstatement: While acknowledging that it was improper for the CA to restrain reinstatement when the appeal only questioned the computation of back wages, the Court found this issue moot. Uy was reinstated in BPI's payroll on August 1, 2006, a fact not disputed by Uy. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court affirmed that BPI's resort to certiorari under Rule 65 was proper. Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution, making a special civil action under Rule 65 the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party. On the 12% legal interest: The Court ruled that a 12% legal interest per annum should be imposed on the monetary awards. Citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this interest applies from the finality of the March 31, 2005 Decision until full satisfaction, representing the delay caused. On service of petition: BPI's allegation of improper service was dismissed. Records showed an affidavit of service with a registry receipt, proving that the CA was duly furnished with a copy of the petition. On teller's functional allowance: The Court ruled that Uy is entitled to the teller's functional allowance. Her function as a teller at the time of dismissal was factually established and not impugned. BPI failed to present evidence that Uy was assigned as a low-counter staff, thus failing to prove its allegation. On attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees. This issue was already threshed out and settled with finality when the parties failed to question it on appeal. The CA correctly noted that since the award was not assailed before the CA and the Supreme Court, it attained finality.
Main Doctrine
The base figure in computing the award of back wages to an illegally dismissed employee is the employee’s basic salary plus regular allowances and benefits received at the time of dismissal, unqualified by any wage and benefit increases granted in the interim.