C.I.C.M. Mission Seminaries v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Maria Veronica C. Perez filed an illegal dismissal case against petitioners C.I.C.M. Mission Seminaries and Fr. Romeo Nimez. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ordered petitioners to pay respondent backwages and separation pay amounting to P286,670.58. This decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Court of Appeals (CA), and the Supreme Court. The decision became final and executory on October 4, 2012. Procedural History: Respondent moved for a writ of execution. Petitioners opposed, claiming their obligation was satisfied by the release of a cash bond of P272,337.05. The LA, in its July 10, 2014 Order, ruled the bond insufficient and ordered a recomputation of the monetary award, including additional backwages and separation pay from June 16, 2008, until October 4, 2012. The total award was recomputed to P1,847,088.89, with a balance due of P1,575,751.84. The LA ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the LA's ruling. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed their petition. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioners seek to determine the legal basis for computing backwages and separation pay when reinstatement is not ordered and the employee appeals, allegedly delaying the resolution. They argue that the computation should only be up to June 16, 2008 (date of LA decision), not until the finality of the Supreme Court decision, contending that the cited cases where computation was until finality involved employers who appealed, unlike in their case where they claim the employee's appeal caused the delay.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the National Labor Relations Commission's ruling that the backwages and separation pay should be recomputed until the finality of the Supreme Court's decision. Whether the computation of backwages and separation pay should be limited to the date of the Labor Arbiter's decision when the employee appeals the aspect of reinstatement.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on February 3, 2016, is LIFTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's ruling that backwages and separation pay should be recomputed until the finality of the Supreme Court's decision: The Court finds no merit in the petition. Firstly, the petitioners failed to append the required affidavit of service, a procedural defect that is fatal to their petition. However, for the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court delved into the merits. The Court's duty in a Rule 45 petition assailing a CA decision in a labor case is to determine if the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the absence or existence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The petitioners failed to prove that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA's decision was based on long-standing jurisprudence, such as Gaco v. NLRC, Surima v. NLRC, and Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. CA, which hold that in cases of illegal dismissal where separation pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and separation pay shall be computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision. This rule is based on the principle that the employment relationship subsists until the finality of the decision, and the employee is entitled to monetary awards during this period. The Court reiterated in Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman that the employment relationship is terminated only upon the finality of the decision ordering separation pay, which cuts off the relationship and represents the final settlement of rights and obligations. Therefore, the CA did not err in affirming the NLRC's conclusion, which was clearly based on established jurisprudence. On the issue of whether the computation of backwages and separation pay should be limited to the date of the Labor Arbiter's decision when the employee appeals the aspect of reinstatement: The Court ruled in the negative. It is settled that it does not matter if the delay caused by an appeal was brought about by the employer or the employee. If the LA's decision, which granted separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, is appealed by any party, the employer-employee relationship subsists until the decision becomes final and executory. In this case, respondent remained an employee pending her partial appeal. Her employment was only severed when the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 200490, affirmed with finality the rulings declaring her right to separation pay instead of actual reinstatement. Accordingly, she is entitled to have her backwages and separation pay computed until October 4, 2012, the date when the judgment became final and executory. To rule otherwise would force employees to relinquish their fight for reinstatement early on and would be a derogation of the State's policy to protect workers' rights. The Court also disagreed with the petitioners' assertion that recomputation violates the doctrine of immutability of judgment, stating that recomputation is a necessary consequence of the illegality of dismissal and does not alter the final decision, but merely computes the monetary consequences.
Main Doctrine
In cases of illegal dismissal where separation pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and separation pay shall be computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision, regardless of who appealed the case, as the employer-employee relationship subsists until such finality.