Guzman Case 2013

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

1/16

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No.170904 November 13, 2013

BANI RURAL BAN INC. ENOC T!EATER I AN" II #$%&or

RA'AEL "E GU(MAN,Petitioners,vs.TERESA "E GU(MAN, E"GAR C. TAN #$% TERESA G.

TAN,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

e pass upon the petition for revie! on certiorari "under Rule #$ ofthe Rules of Court filed b% petitioners &ani Rural &an', Inc., ENOC(heater I and II, and Rafael de )u*+an. (he% assail thedecisiondated Septe+ber ", --$ and the resolutiondatedDece+ber "#, --$ of the Court of /ppeals C/0 in C/1).R. SP No.2--3$. (he assailed C/ rulin4s, in turn, affir+ed the co+putation of

the bac'!a4es due respondents (eresa de )u*+an and Ed4ar C.(an#+ade b% the National 5abor Relations Co++ission 6N5RC0.

(he 7acts

(he respondents !ere e+plo%ees of &ani Rural &an', Inc. andENOC (heatre I and II !ho filed a co+plaint for ille4al dis+issala4ainst the petitioners. (he co+plaint !as initiall% dis+issed b% 5abor

/rbiter Ro8ue &. de )u*+an on March "$, "99#. On appeal, theNational 5abor Relations Co++ission 6N5RC0 reversed 5abor /rbiter

De )u*+an:s findin4s, and ruled that the respondents had beenille4all% dis+issed. In a resolution$dated March "2, "99$ the N5RCordered the petitioners to;

...

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

2/16

bac'!a4es fro+ the ti+e o their dis+issal 6constructive0 until theiractual reinstate+ent, less earnin4s else!here. >

(he parties did not file an% +otion for reconsideration or appeal. (heMarch "2, "99$ resolution of the N5RC beca+e final and e?ecutor%and the co+putation of the a!ards !as re+anded to the labor arbiterfor e?ecution purposes.

(he first co+putation of he +onetar% a!ard under the March ,"2"99$ resolution of the N5RC

(he co+putation of the respondents: bac'!a4es, under the ter+s ofthe March "2 "99$ N5RC resolution !as re+anded to 5abor /rbiterRolando D. )a+bito. 7irst, 5abor /rbiter )a+bito deducted the

earnin4s derived b% the respondents either fro+ &ani Rural &an',Inc. or ENOC (heatre I and II. Second, 5abor /rbiter )a+bito fi?edthe period of bac'!a4es fro+ the respondents: ille4al dis+issal until

/u4ust $ "99$ or the date !hen the respondents alle4edl%+anifested that the% no lon4er !anted to be reinstated. 2

(he respondents appealed 5abor /rbiter )a+bito:s co+putation !iththe N5RC. In a

Decision3dated @ul% ", "993, the N5RC +odified the ter+s of the

March "2, "99$ resolution insofar as it clarified the phrase lessearnin4s else!here. (he N5RC additionall% a!arded the pa%+ent ofseparation pa%, in lieu of reinstate+ent, under the follo!in4 ter+s;

(he decision of this Co++ission is hereb% MODI7IED to the e?tentthat; 6"0 the phrase earnin4s else!here in its dispositive portion shalle?clude the co+plainants: salaries fro+ the Rural &an' ofMan4antare+A and 60 in lieu of reinstate+ent, the respondents arehereb% ordered to pa% the co+plainants separation pa% e8uivalent toone +onth salar% for ever% %ear of service co+puted fro+ the start of

their e+plo%+ent up to the date of the finalit% of the decision. 9

(he N5RC Bustified the a!ard of separation pa% on account of thestrained relations bet!een the parties. In doin4 so, the N5RC ruled;

Insofar as the second issue is concerned, it should be noted; 6"0 thatin his report dated Nove+ber 3, "99$, the N5RC Sheriff stated that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt9

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

3/16

on October $, "99$, he !ent to the Sub1/rbitration &ranch to servethe !rit of e?ecution upon the co+plainantsA that the% did not appear,but instead, sent a representative na+ed Sa+uel de la Cru* !hoinfor+ed hi+ that the% !ere interested, not on bein4 reinstated, butonl% in the +onetar% a!ardA 60 that in a letter dated October 9, "99$,the co+plainants authori*ed one Sa+uel de la Cru* to 4et a cop% ofthe !rit of e?ecutionA and 60 that durin4 the pre1e?ecutionconference, the respondents: counsel +anifested that therespondents !ere re8uirin4 the co+plainants to report for !or' onMonda% and, in turn, the co+plainants: counsel +anifested that theco+plainants !ere as'in4 to be reinstated. (he proceedin4s alread%protracted as it is1!ould be dela%ed further if this case !ere to bere+anded to the 5abor /rbiter for a hearin4 to ascertain thecorrectness of the above1+entioned sheriff:s report. &esides, if both

parties !ere reall% interested in the co+plainants bein4 reinstated, astheir counsels stated durin4 the pre1e?ecution conference, the saidreinstate+ent should alread% have been effected. Since neither part%has actuall% done an%thin4 to i+ple+ent the co+plainants:reinstate+ent, it !ould appear that the relations bet!een the+ havebeen strained to such an e?tent as to +a'e the resu+ption of thee+plo%er1e+plo%ee relationship unpalatable to both of the+. nderthe circu+stances, separation pa% +a% be a!arded in lieu ofreinstate+ent."-

(he respondents filed a +otion for reconsideration on !hether thea!ard of bac'!a4es !as still included in the Bud4+ent. (he N5RCdis+issed the +otion for havin4 been filed out of ti+e.

On @anuar% 9, "999, the @ul% ", "993 decision of the N5RC lapsedto finalit% and beca+e e?ecutor%.

(he second co+putation of the +onetar% a!ards under the @ul% ",993 decision of the N5RC

(he reco+putation of the +onetar% a!ards of the respondents:bac'!a4es and separation pa%, accordin4 to the decision dated @ul%", "993 and the +odified ter+s of the March "2, "99$ resolution ofthe N5RC, !as referred to 5abor /rbiter )a+bito. In the course of thereco+putation, the petitioners filed before 5abor /rbiter )a+bito aMotion to uash rit of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt10

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

4/16

E?ecution and Suspend 7urther E?ecution the% reiterated theirposition that the respondents bac'!a4es should be co+puted onl%up to /u4ust $, "99$, citin4 the alle4ed +anifestation +ade b% therespondents, throu4h Sa+uel de la Cru*, as their basis.

In an order""dated @ul% ", ---, 5abor /rbiter )a+bito co+putedthe respondents bac'!a4es onl% up to /u4ust $, "99$.

(he N5RCs Rulin4

(he respondents appealed the @ul% ", --- order of 5abor /rbiter)a+bito to the N5RC, !hich reversed 5abor /rbiter )a+bito s order.In its decision"dated Septe+ber 3, --", the N5RC ruled that theco+putation of the respondents bac'!a4es should be until @anuar%

9 "999 !hich !as the date !hen the @ul% ", "993 decision attainedfinalit%;

FERE7ORE, the Order of 5abor /rbiter Rolando D. )a+bito dated@ul% ", --- is SE( /SIDE. In lieu thereof, Bud4+ent is hereb%rendered b% orderin4 respondents to p % co+plainants bac'!a4es upto @anuar% 9, "999 as above discussed."

(he N5RC e+phasi*ed that the issue relatin4 to the co+putation ofthe respondents bac'!a4es had been settled in its @ul% ", "993

decision. In a resolution dated @anuar% , --, the N5RC deniedthe +otion for reconsideration filed b% the petitioners.

(he petitioners disa4reed !ith the N5RC s rulin4 and filed a petitionfor certiorari !ith the C/, raisin4 the follo!in4 issues;

6/0 (FE COMMISSION /C(ED I(FO( @RISDIC(ION/ND I(F )R/VE . /&SE O7 DISCRE(ION /MON(IN)(O 5/CG O7 @RISDIC(ION FEN I( REVERSED /ND SE(

/SIDE (FE ORDER O7 5/&OR /R&I(ER RO5/NDO D.

)/M&I(O D/(ED @5H ", --- /ND ORDERED (FECOMP(/(ION O7 PRIV/(E RESPONDEN(S &/CG/)ES(O COVER (FE PERIOD /7(ER /)S( $, "99$, ORN(I5 @/N/RH 9, "999, (FE D/(E O7 7IN/5I(H O7 (FESECOND RESO5(ION O7 (FE COMMISSION.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt13

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

5/16

6&0 (FE COMMISSION /C(ED I(F )R/VE /&SE O7DISCRE(ION /MON(IN) (O 5/CG O7 @RISDIC(ION7OR DENHIN) PE(I(IONERS MO(ION 7OR RECONSIDER/(ION."#

(he C/ Rulin4s

(he C/ found the petition to be !ithout +erit. It held that certiorari!as not the proper re+ed% since no error of Burisdiction !as raised orno 4rave abuse of discretion !as co++itted b% the N5RC. (he C/stated that;

(he e?traordinar% re+ed% of certiorari is proper if the tribunal, boardor officer e?ercisin4 Budicial or 8uasi1Budicial functions acted !ithout or

in 4rave abuse of discretion a+ountin4 to lac' or e?cess ofBurisdiction and there is no appeal or an% plain, speed%, and ade8uatere+ed% in la!. hen a court, tribunal or officer has Burisdiction overthe person and the subBect +atter of dispute, the decision on all other8uestions arisin4 in the case is an e?ercise of that Burisdiction.Conse8uentl%, all errors co++itted in the e?ercise of said Burisdictionare +erel% errors of Bud4+ent. nder prevailin4 procedural rules and

Burisprudence, errors of Bud4+ent are not proper subBects of a specialcivil action for certiorari."$

(hus, the C/ echoed the N5RCs conclusions;

/s e?plained in the assailed Decision, !hat is controllin4 for purposesof the bac'!a4es is the N5RC s Resolution dated "2 March "99$!hich decreed that private respondents are entitled to bac'!a4esfro+ the ti+e of their dis+issal 6constructive0 until their actualreinstate+entA and considerin4 that the a!ard of reinstate+ent !asset aside b% the N5RC in its final and e?ecutor% Decision dated @ul%"993 !hich ordered the pa%+ent of separation pa% in lieu ofreinstate+ent to be co+puted up to the finalit% on 9 @anuar% "999 ofsaid Decision dated @ul% "993, then the co+putation of thebac'!a4es should also end on said date, !hich is 9 @anuar% "999. ">

Citin4 the case of Chronicle Securities Corp. v. N5RC,"2the C/ heldthat bac'!a4es are 4ranted to an e+plo%ee or !or'er !ho had beenille4all% dis+issed fro+ e+plo%+ent. If reinstate+ent is no lon4er
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt17

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

6/16

possible, the bac'!a4es shall be co+puted fro+ the ti+e of theille4al ter+ination up to the finalit% of the decision.

(he Present Petition

(he petitioners ar4ue that the follo!in4 reversible errors !ereco++itted b% the C/, na+el%;

6"0 In rulin4 that no 4rave abuse of discretion !as co++itted b%the N5RC !hen it issued the Septe+ber 3, --" decision, the@anuar% , -- resolution and the @ul% ", "993 decision,!hich +odified the final and e?ecutor% resolution dated March"2, "99$ of the N5RC co+putin4 the bac'!a4es onl% until thereinstate+ent of the respondentsA

60 hen it +anifestl% overloo'ed or +isappreciated relevantfacts, i.e. 5abor /rbiter )a+bito s co+putation did confor+ tothe N5RC s March "2, "99$ resolution considerin4 the+anifestation of Sa+uel that the respondents no lon4er !antedto be reinstated, in response to the order of e?ecution dated

/u4ust $, "99$A and

60 hen it declared that onl% errors o Bud4+ent, and notBurisdiction, !ere co++itted b% the N5RC.

In their Co++ent,"3the respondents contend that the co+putation ofthe bac'!a4es until @anuar% 9, "999 !as consistent !ith the tenorof the decision dated @ul% ", "993 and the +odified March "2, "99$resolution of the N5RC.

/fter the petitioners filed their Repl%,"9the Court resolved to 4ive duecourse to the petitionA in co+pliance !ith our directive, the partiessub+itted their respective +e+oranda repeatin4 the ar4u+ents in thepleadin4s earlier filed.-

(he Issue

/s presented, the issue boils do!n to !hether the respondentsbac'!a4es had been correctl% co+puted under the decision datedSepte+ber 3, --" of the N5RC, as confir+ed b% the C/, in li4ht of

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

7/16

the circu+stance that there !ere t!o final N5RC decisions affectin4the co+putation of the bac'!a4es.

(he Court s Rulin4

e find the petition un+eritorious.

Preli+inar% considerations

In Session Deli4hts Ice Crea+ and 7ast 7oods v. Court of /ppeals6Si?th Division0,"!e held that a decision in an ille4al dis+issal caseconsists essentiall% of t!o co+ponents;

(he first is that part of the decision that cannot no! be disputedbecause it has been confir+ed !ith finalit%. (his is the findin4 of theille4alit% of the dis+issal and the a!ards of separation pa% in lieu ofreinstate+ent, bac'!a4es.

(he second part is the co+putation of the a!ards +ade.

(he first part of the decision ste+s fro+ the March "2, "99$ N5RCresolution findin4 an ille4al dis+issal and definin4 the le4alconse8uences of this dis+issal. (he second part involves theco+putation of the +onetar% a!ard of bac'!a4es and the

respondents: reinstate+ent. nder the ter+s of the March "2, "99$resolution, the respondents: bac'!a4es !ere to be co+puted fro+the ti+e of the ille4al dis+issal up to their reinstate+ent.

In the first co+putation of the bac'!a4es, 5abor /rbiter )a+bitoconfronted the follo!in4 circu+stances and the Sheriffs Report datedNove+ber 3, "99$;first, ho! to interpret the phrase less earnin4selse!here as stated in the dispositive portion of the March "2, "99$resolution of the N5RCA second, the effect of the alle4ed+anifestation 6dated October 9, "99$0 of Sa+uel that the

respondents !ere onl% interested in the +onetar% a!ard, not in theirreinstate+entA and third, the effect of the respondents: counsel:sstate+ent durin4 the pre1e?ecution proceedin4s that the respondentssi+pl% !anted to be reinstated.

(he records indicate that the respondents denied Sa+uel:s state+entand as'ed for reinstate+ent throu4h their counsel. Nevertheless,

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

8/16

5abor /rbiter )a+bito relied on Sa+uel:s state+ent and fi?ed theco+putation date of the respondents: bac'!a4es to be up to and until

/u4ust $, "99$ or the date the order of e?ecution !as issued for theN5RC:s March "2, "99$ decision. /s stated in his @ul% ", ---order,#5abor /rbiter )a+bito found it fair and Bust that in thee?ecution of the N5RC:s decision, the co+putation of therespondents: bac'!a4es should stop at that ti+e !hen it !as put onrecord b% the+

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

9/16

rendered it. /n% atte+pt on the part of the ? ? ? entities char4ed !iththe e?ecution of a final Bud4+ent to insert, chan4e or add +atters notclearl% conte+plated in the dispositive portion violates the rule oni++utabilit% of Bud4+ents.>/n e?ception to this rule is the e?istenceof supervenin4 events2!hich refer to facts transpirin4 after Bud4+enthas beco+e final and e?ecutor% or to ne! circu+stances thatdeveloped after the Bud4+ent ac8uired finalit%, includin4 +atters thatthe parties !ere not a!are of prior to or durin4 the trial as the% !erenot %et in e?istence at that ti+e.3

nder the circu+stances of this case, the e?istence of the strainedrelations bet!een the petitioners and the respondents !as asupervenin4 event that Bustified the N5RC s +odification of its finalMarch "2, "99$ resolution. (he N5RC, in its @ul% ", "993 decision,

based its conclusion that strained relations e?isted on the conduct ofthe parties durin4 the first e?ecution proceedin4s before 5abor /rbiter)a+bito. (he N5RC considered the dela% in the respondentsreinstate+ent and the parties conflictin4 clai+s on !hether therespondents !anted to be reinstated.9(he N5RC also observed thatdurin4 the intervenin4 period fro+ the first co+putation 6!hich !asdone in "99$0 to the appeal and resolution of the correctness of thefirst co+putation 6subBect of the N5RC s @ul% ", "993 decision0,neither part% actuall% did an%thin4 to i+ple+ent the respondentsreinstate+ent. (he N5RC considered these, actions as indicative ofthe strained relations bet!een the parties so that neither of the+actuall% !anted to i+ple+ent the reinstate+ent decree in the March"2, "99$ resolution. (he N5RC concluded that the a!ard ofreinstate+ent !as no lon4er possibleA thus, it a!arded separationpa%, in lieu of reinstate+ent. nless e?ceptional reasons arepresented, these above findin4s and conclusion can no lon4er bedisturbed after the% lapsed to finalit%.

/ppeal of labor case under Rule #$

/ revie! of the C/ s decision in a labor case, brou4ht to the Court viaRule #$ of the Rules of Court, is li+ited to a revie! of errors of la!i+puted to the C/. In Monto%a v. (rans+ed Manila Corporation, -!elaid do!n the basic approach in revie!s of Rule #$ decisions of theC/ in labor cases, as follo!s;
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt30

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

10/16

In a Rule #$ revie!, !e consider the correctness of the assailed C/decision, in contrast !ith the revie! for Burisdictional error that !eunderta'e under Rule >$. 7urther+ore, Rule #$ li+its us to therevie! of 8uestions of la! raised a4ainst the assailed C/ decision. Inrulin4 for le4al correctness, !e have to vie! the C/ decision in thesa+e conte?t that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon !aspresented to itA !e have to e?a+ine the C/ decision fro+ the pris+ of!hether it correctl% deter+ined the presence or absence of 4raveabuse of discretion in the N5RC decision before it, not on the basis of!hether the N5RC decision on the +erits of the case !as correct. Inother !ords, !e have to be 'eenl% a!are that the C/ undertoo' aRule >$ revie!, not a revie! on appeal, of the N5RC decisionchallen4ed before it. (his is the approach that should be basic in aRule #$ revie! of a C/ rulin4 in a labor case. In 8uestion for+, the

8uestion to as' is; Did the C correctl% deter+ine !hether the N5RCco++itted 4rave abuse of discretion in rulin4 on the caseK

(his +anner of revie! !as reiterated in Fol% Child Catholic School vFon. Patricia Sta. (o+as, etc., et al., "!here the Court li+ited itsrevie! under Rule #$ of the C/ s decision in a labor case to thedeter+ination of !hether the C/ correctl% resolved the presence orabsence of 4rave abuse of discretion in the decision of the Secretar%of 5abor, and not on the basis of !hether the latter:s decision on the+erits of the case !as strictl% correct.

)rave abuse of discretion, a+ountin4 to lac' or e?cess of Burisdiction,has been defined as the capricious and !hi+sical e?ercise of

Bud4+ent a+ountin4 to or e8uivalent to lac' of Burisdiction.(here is4rave abuse of discretion !hen the po!er is e?ercised in an arbitrar%or despotic +anner b% reason of passion or personal hostilit%, and+ust be so patent and so 4ross as to a+ount to an evasion of apositive dut% or to a virtual refusal to perfor+ the dut% enBoined or toact at all in conte+plation of la!.

ith this standard in +ind, !e find no reversible error co++itted b%the C/ !hen it found no 4rave abuse of discretion in the N5RC:srulin4. e find the co+putation of bac'!a4es and separation pa% inthe Septe+ber 3, --" decision of the N5RC consistent !ith theprovisions of la! and Burisprudence. (he co+putation confor+s to theter+s of the March "2, "99$ resolution 6on ille4al dis+issal and

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

11/16

pa%+ent of bac'!a4es0 and the @ul% ", "993 decision 6on theco+putation of the bac'!a4es and the pa%+ent of separation pa%0.

/rticle 29 of the 5abor Code, as a+ended,#provides bac'!a4esand reinstate+ent as basic a!ards and conse8uences of ille4aldis+issal;

/rticle 29. Securit% of (enure. 1? ? ? /n e+plo%ee !ho is unBustl%dis+issed fro+ !or' shall be entitled to reinstate+ent !ithout loss ofseniorit% ri4hts and other privile4es and to his full bac'!a4es,inclusive of allo!ances, and to his other benefits or their +onetar%e8uivalent co+puted fro+ the ti+e his co+pensation !as !ithheldfro+ hi+ up to the ti+e of his actual reinstate+ent.

&% Burisprudence derived fro+ this provision, separation pa% +a%

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

12/16

due process is entitled to bac'!a4es and reinstate+ent or pa%+entof separation pa% in lieu thereof;

(hus, an ille4all% dis+issed e+plo%ee is entitled to t!o reliefs;bac'!a4es and reinstate+ent. (he t!o reliefs provided are separateand distinct. In instances !here reinstate+ent is no lon4er feasiblebecause of strained relations bet!een the e+plo%ee and thee+plo%er, separation pa% is 4ranted. In effect, an ille4all% dis+issede+plo%ee is entitled to either reinstate+ent, if viable, or separationpa% if reinstate+ent is no lon4er viable, and bac'!a4es.

(he nor+al conse8uences of respondents ille4al dis+issal, then, arereinstate+ent !ithout loss of seniorit% ri4hts, and pa%+ent ofbac'!a4es co+puted fro+ the ti+e co+pensation !as !ithheld up to

the date of actual reinstate+ent. here reinstate+ent is no lon4erviable as an option, separation pa% e8uivalent to one 6"0 +onth salar%for ever% %ear of service should be a!arded as an alternative. (hepa%+ent of separation pa% is in addition to pa%+ent of bac'!a4es. #-

(he co+putation of separation pa% is based on the len4th of thee+plo%ee s serviceA and the co+putation of bac'!a4es is based onthe actual period !hen the e+plo%ee !as unla!full% prevented fro+!or'in4.#"

(he basis of co+putation of bac'!a4es

(he co+putation of bac'!a4es depends on the final a!ardsadBud4ed as a conse8uence of ille4al dis+issal, in that;

7irst, !hen reinstate+ent is ordered, the 4eneral concept under/rticle 29 of the 5abor Code, as a+ended, co+putes thebac'!a4es fro+ the ti+e of dis+issal until the e+plo%eesreinstate+ent. (he co+putation of bac'!a4es 6and si+ilar benefitsconsidered part of the bac'!a4es0 can even continue be%ond the

decision of the labor arbiter or N5RC and ends onl% !hen thee+plo%ee is actuall% reinstated.#

Second, !hen separation pa% is ordered in lieu of reinstate+ent 6inthe event that this aspect of the case is disputed0 or reinstate+ent is!aived b% the e+plo%ee 6in the event that the pa%+ent of separation

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

13/16

pa%, in lieu, is not disputed0, bac'!a4es is co+puted fro+ the ti+e ofdis+issal until the finalit% of the decision orderin4 separation pa%.

(hird, !hen separation pa% is ordered after the finalit% of the decisionorderin4 the reinstate+ent b% reason of a supervenin4 event that+a'es the a!ard of reinstate+ent no lon4er possible 6as in the case0,bac'!a4es is co+puted fro+ the ti+e of dis+issal until the finalit% ofthe decision orderin4 separation pa%.

(he above co+putation of bac'!a4es, !hen separation pa% isordered, has been the Court s consistent rulin4. In Session Deli4htsIce Crea+ and 7ast 7oods v. Court /ppeals Si?th Division, !ee?plained that the finalit% of the decision beco+es the rec'onin4 pointbecause in allo!in4 separation pa%, the final decision effectivel%

declares that the e+plo%+ent relationship ended so that separationpa% and bac'!a4es are to be co+puted up to that point. #

e +a% also vie! the proper co+putation of bac'!a4es 6!hetherbased on reinstate+ent or an order of separation pa%0 in ter+s of thelife of the e+plo%+ent relationship itself. 1wphi1

hen reinstate+ent is ordered, the e+plo%+ent relationshipcontinues. Once the ille4all% dis+issed e+plo%ee is reinstated, an%co+pensation and benefits thereafter received ste+ fro+ the

e+plo%ee s continued e+plo%+ent. In this instance, bac'!a4es areco+puted onl% up until the reinstate+ent of the e+plo%ee since afterthe reinstate+ent, the e+plo%ee be4ins to receive co+pensationfro+ his resu+ed e+plo%+ent.

hen there is an order of separation pa% 6in lieu of reinstate+ent or!hen the reinstate+ent aspect is !aived or subse8uentl% ordered inli4ht of a supervenin4 event +a'in4 the a!ard of reinstate+ent nolon4er possible0, the e+plo%+ent relationship is ter+inated onl% uponthe finalit% of the decision orderin4 the separation pa%. (he finalit% ofthe decision cuts1off the e+plo%+ent relationship and represents thefinal settle+ent of the ri4hts and obli4ations of the parties a4ainsteach other. Fence, bac'!a4es no lon4er accu+ulate upon the finalit%of the decision orderin4 the pa%+ent of separation pa% since thee+plo%ee is no lon4er entitled to an% co+pensation fro+ thee+plo%er b% reason of the severance of his e+plo%+ent.

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

14/16

(he co+putation of the respondents bac'!a4es

/s the records sho!, the contendin4 parties did not dispute the N5RCs order of separation pa% that replaced the a!ard of reinstate+ent onthe 4round of the supervenin4 event arisin4 fro+ the ne!l%1discovered strained relations bet!een the parties. (he partiesallo!ed the N5RC s @ul% ", "993 decision to lapse into finalit% andreco4ni*ed, b% their active participation in the second co+putation ofthe a!ards, the validit% and bindin4 effect on the+ of the ter+s of the@ul% ", "993 decision.

nder these circu+stances, !hile there !as no e?press +odificationon the period for co+putin4 bac'!a4es stated in the dispositiveportion of the @ul% ", "993 decision of the N5RC, it is nevertheless

clear that the a!ard of reinstate+ent under the March "2, "99$resolution 6to !hich the respondents bac'!a4es !as initiall%supposed to have been co+puted0 !as substituted b% an a!ard ofseparation pa%. /s earlier stated, the a!ards of reinstate+ent andseparation pa% are e?clusive re+ediesA the chan4e of a!ards 6fro+reinstate+ent to separation pa%0 under the N5RC s @ul% ", "993 notonl% +odified the a!ards 4ranted, but also chan4ed the +anner therespondents bac'!a4es is to be co+puted. (he respondentsbac'!a4es can no lon4er be co+puted up to the point ofreinstate+ent as there is no lon4er an% a!ard of reinstate+ent to

spea' of.

e also e+phasi*e that the pa%+ent of bac'!a4es and separationpa% cannot be co+puted fro+ the ti+e the respondents alle4edl%e?pressed their !ish to be paid separation pa%. In the first place, therecords sho! that the alle4ed +anifestation b% the respondents,throu4h Sa+uel, !as actuall% a +ere e?pression of interest. ##Morei+portantl%, the alle4ed +anifestation !as disre4arded in the N5RC:s@ul% ", "993 decision !here the N5RC declared that the a!ard of

separation pa% !as due to the supervenin4 event arisin4 fro+ thestrained relations 6not a !aiver of reinstate+ent0 that Bustified the+odification of the N5RC:s final March "2, "99$ resolution on thea!ard of reinstate+ent. Si+pl% put, insofar as the co+putation of therespondents: bac'!a4es, !e are 4uided b% the a!ard, +odified toseparation pa%, under the N5RC:s @ul% ", "993 decision.

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

15/16

(hus, the co+putation of the respondents: bac'!a4es +ust be fro+the ti+e of the ille4al dis+issal fro+ e+plo%+ent until the finalit% ofthe decision orderin4 the pa%+ent of separation pa%. It is onl% !henthe N5RC rendered its @ul% ", "993 decision orderin4 the pa%+entof separation pa% 6!hich both parties no lon4er 8uestioned and !hichthereafter beca+e final0 that the issue of the respondents:e+plo%+ent !ith the petitioners !as decided !ith finalit%, effectivel%ter+inatin4 it. (he respondents: bac'!a4es, therefore, +ust beco+puted fro+ the ti+e of their ille4al dis+issal until @anuar% 9,"999, the date of finalit% of the N5RC:s @ul% ", "993 Decision. /s afinal point, the C/ s rulin4 +ust be +odified to include le4al interestco++encin4 fro+ the finalit% of the N5RC:s @ul% ", "993 decision.(he C/ failed to consider that the N5RC:s @ul% ", "993 decision,once final, beco+es a Bud4+ent for +one% fro+ !hich another

conse8uence flo!s 1the pa%+ent of interest in case of dela%.#$nderthe circu+stances, the pa%+ent of le4al interest of si? percent 6>0upon the finalit% of the Bud4+ent is proper. It is not barred b% theprinciple of i++utabilit% of Bud4+ent as it is co+pensator% interestarisin4 fro+ the final Bud4+ent.#>

FERE7ORE, pre+ises considered, !e DENH the petition and thuseffectivel% /77IRM !ith MODI7IC/(ION the decision datedSepte+ber " --$ and the resolution dated Dece+ber "#, --$ ofthe Court of /ppeals in C/1).R. SP No. 2--3$. (he petitioners &aniRural &an', Inc., Enoc (heatre I and II andLor Rafael de )u*+an, areORDERED to P/H respondents (eresa de )u*+an, Ed4ar C. (anand (eresa ). (an the follo!in4;

6a0 &ac'!a4es co+puted fro+ the date the petitioners ille4all%dis+issed the respondents up to @anuar% 9, "999, the date ofthe finalit% of the decision dated @ul% ", "993 of the National5abor Relations Co++ission in N5RC CN. S&1R/&1-"1-21 21-">19 C/ No. 51--"#- and N5RC CN. S&1R/&1-"1-2121

-"219 C/ No. 51--"#-$A

6b0 Separation pa% co+puted fro+ respondents: first da% ofe+plo%+ent up to @anuar% 9, "999 at the rate of one 6"0+onth pa% per %ear of serviceA and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_170904_2013.html#fnt46

7/23/2019 Guzman Case 2013

16/16

6c0 5e4al interest of si? percent 6>0 per annu+ of the total+onetar% a!ards co+puted fro+ @anuar% 9, "999 until theirfull satisfaction.

(he labor arbiter is hereb% ORDERED to +a'e anotherreco+putation accordin4 to the above directives.

SO ORDERED.

Documents

Guzman Case 2013