Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company v. Jaranilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from consolidated complaints filed by respondents Romeo M. Jaranilla, Marlon H. Guantero, and Jesus B. Domanais against petitioners Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company, Don L. Morales, and Eileen Flores. The respondents alleged illegal dismissal, seeking full backwages and reinstatement. Initially, Labor Arbiter (LA) Benedict G. Kato ruled in favor of the respondents, finding them to have been illegally dismissed. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision on appeal, dismissing the complaints. Subsequently, the NLRC granted the respondents' motion for reconsideration, reinstating the LA's original decision. Procedural History: Following the NLRC's reinstatement of the LA's decision, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). While this petition was pending, respondents secured a Writ of Execution from the LA, leading to partial payment of the judgment award. The CA, in its decision, granted the petitioners' certiorari petition, annulling the NLRC's resolution and reinstating the NLRC's earlier decision that dismissed the complaints. This CA decision became final and executory. Thereafter, respondents sought an Alias Writ of Execution, arguing they were entitled to reinstatement wages for the period following the NLRC's reinstatement of the LA's ruling until the CA's reversal. The LA granted this motion, a decision affirmed by the NLRC and subsequently by the CA, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision that affirmed the NLRC's affirmation of the LA's order for an Alias Writ of Execution. Petitioners argue that the CA erred in allowing the issuance of the Alias Writ of Execution, particularly for the period after the CA had already reversed the NLRC's decision and declared the respondents legally dismissed. They also contend that they are entitled to restitution of payments already made. The core of their argument is that the respondents are not entitled to reinstatement wages during the period when the LA's decision was reversed by the NLRC and subsequently by the CA, and that the finality of the CA's decision should preclude further execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA gravely erred in affirming the NLRC's Decision and concluding that respondents are entitled to reinstatement wages after the NLRC, on reconsideration, reinstated LA Kato's Order, that is from October 31, 2014 to June 30, 2015, when the CA reversed the NLRC Resolution and in effect set aside the LA Decision. Whether the CA gravely erred in disregarding petitioners' right to restitution, even with the total nullification by the CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 138339, of the October 31, 2014 NLRC Resolution.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated March 14, 2019, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Labor Arbiter's Order dated August 30, 2016, is MODIFIED in that respondents Romeo M. Jaranilla, Marlon H. Guantero, and Jesus B. Domanais are entitled to reinstatement wages from November 25, 2013, to June 30, 2015. An Alias Writ of Execution shall be ISSUED to such effect. The Labor Arbiter is further DIRECTED to re-compute the amount of respondents' reinstatement wages for the said period and determine whether the amounts already released exceed or are less than the amounts respondents are entitled to, and thereafter collect any deficit or return any excess.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to reinstatement wages: The Court held that respondents are entitled to reinstatement wages from November 25, 2013 (the date of the LA's decision) until June 30, 2015 (the date of the CA's final reversal). This period includes the time when the NLRC reversed the LA's decision (April 23, 2014, to October 31, 2014), as the concept of "final reversal" under Article 229 of the Labor Code means the reversal by the highest court that does not get set aside. In this case, the CA's decision was the final reversal as it was not subsequently set aside and attained finality. The Court emphasized that the reinstatement aspect of a Labor Arbiter's decision is immediately executory, even pending appeal, as mandated by the Constitution and jurisprudence to prevent a continuing threat to the survival of the dismissed employee and their family. Failure to comply with the reinstatement order, either by actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement, renders the employer liable for salaries. The Court cited Bergonio, Jr., et al. v. South East Asian Airlines, et al. and Roquero v. Philippine Airlines to support the principle that unjustified refusal to reinstate entitles the employee to salaries from the time of failure to reinstate. The constitutional basis for this immediate execution, as explained in Aris (Phil.) Inc. v. NLRC, is the State's policy to protect labor as a primary social and economic force. On the right to restitution and the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution: The Court found that petitioners are entitled to an Alias Writ of Execution despite the finality of the CA Decision declaring respondents justly terminated. The Court reiterated that an employer is obligated to pay wages during the period of appeal until final reversal, and the employee is not required to return salaries received during the period of declared illegal dismissal, even if the appeal is eventually decided in favor of the employer, unless there was an unjustified delay in enforcing the reinstatement order. In this case, the writ of execution was issued prior to the CA's reversal, and payments were made, thus there was no delay attributable to the respondents. The Court clarified that the computation of reinstatement wages should end on the date of the CA's reversal (June 30, 2015), not when the decision became final and executory. Therefore, the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution was warranted, but it needed modification to include the period from April 23, 2014, to October 31, 2014. The Court also directed a re-computation to determine if the amounts already released exceeded or were less than the total entitlement, which would then determine if petitioners are liable for additional wages or entitled to restitution.
Main Doctrine
Reinstatement wages are payable from the Labor Arbiter's decision until the final reversal by the Court of Appeals, even if an intermediate reversal by the NLRC occurred, provided the employer did not unduly delay the execution of the reinstatement order.