Concordo v. Erjohn & Almark Transit Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, employees of respondent company, filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found that petitioners were not dismissed and ordered their reinstatement without loss of seniority rights. Petitioners reported for work but were refused employment. While their motion for reconsideration was pending, they reported for work again, but were again refused. Procedural History: Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision was denied. They filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the NLRC decision. This Court denied their subsequent petition for review on certiorari. Meanwhile, the NLRC decision attained finality as no injunction was issued. Petitioners filed a motion for execution of the reinstatement aspect. The LA ordered the issuance of a writ of execution and payment of accrued wages. The NLRC, however, granted the employer's petition for extraordinary remedies, holding that the LA erred in awarding accrued wages because the NLRC decision was not immediately executory. The NLRC clarified that the order of reinstatement was from the NLRC, not the LA, and thus not self-executory. The NLRC decision had not attained finality when petitioners reported back to work due to their pending motion for reconsideration. The NLRC nullified the LA's order. Petitioners again filed an Omnibus Motion for reinstatement and for contempt, reiterating their claim for accrued backwages. The LA issued a Writ of Execution. The sheriff served the writ, but the company refused reinstatement. Petitioners again filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution for accrued salaries. The LA computed accrued wages. The NLRC granted the employer's petition for extraordinary remedies, nullifying the LA's order and holding that the NLRC decision could not have attained finality due to the pending certiorari proceedings with the CA and appeal with the Supreme Court. The NLRC ruled that petitioners' right to reinstatement arose only on June 16, 2014, when their motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 209710 was denied. The CA denied petitioners' petition for certiorari, agreeing that the NLRC decision had not yet attained finality due to the pending appellate proceedings. The Petition: The present petition for certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that the NLRC decision became final and executory ten days after receipt, and pending certiorari proceedings do not stay execution unless a restraining order is issued.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC Decision dated September 30, 2010, had attained finality as to the respondent company, and if so, the implications for the respondent company's obligation to reinstate the petitioners. Whether petitioners are entitled to reinstatement and backwages from December 24, 2010, considering the finality of the NLRC decision and the pending certiorari proceedings.
Ruling
The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. It ordered the respondent company to immediately reinstate petitioners to their previous work without loss of seniority rights and to pay them their backwages reckoned from December 24, 2010, until their actual reinstatement. The total monetary award shall be subject to legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality of the NLRC Decision and its effect on reinstatement: The Court held that the NLRC Decision dated September 30, 2010, had attained finality as to the respondent company because the respondent company did not assail the decision through a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC or a petition for certiorari with the CA. Its failure to avail of the appropriate remedies within the prescribed periods rendered the judgment final and unalterable. Therefore, the respondent company was bound to reinstate petitioners from December 24, 2010, when an entry of judgment was issued, regardless of the pending certiorari proceedings filed by the petitioner employees. The Court emphasized that an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain affirmative relief from the appellate court beyond what was granted in the lower court's decision. As far as the respondent company was concerned, the reviewing tribunal was precluded from acquiring jurisdiction to review and alter the final judgment. On the entitlement to reinstatement and backwages, considering the final NLRC decision and pending certiorari: The Court found no reason for the respondent company to depart from the order of reinstatement in the NLRC Decision. The pending certiorari proceedings with the CA or appeal with this Court, filed by the petitioner employees, did not preclude the respondent company from reinstating them. The Court clarified that the doctrine of law of the case was inapplicable because the issues settled in the previous proceedings were independent of the issue in the present case concerning the period for enforcing the NLRC Decision. The Court reiterated that the respondent company should have reinstated petitioners on December 24, 2010. Since there was no proof of return to work, petitioners are entitled to receive backwages reckoned from December 24, 2010, until they are reinstated, either actually or in payroll. The Court noted that the CA and NLRC erred in considering the petitioners' right to reinstatement unenforceable due to pending certiorari proceedings, as the respondent company's right to appeal had already lapsed.
Main Doctrine
The failure of an employer to assail an NLRC decision within the prescribed period renders the judgment final and executory as to the employer, making the order of reinstatement enforceable regardless of pending appeals filed by the employees.