THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 106518. March 11, 1999]

ABS CBN SUPERVISORS EMPO!EE UNION MEMBERS, petitioner, vs. ABS CBN
BROA"CAS#ING CORP., $ERBER# RIVERA, ABER#O BERBON, CIN"!
MUNO%, CESO &AMBAOS, SAVA"OR "E VERA, ARNU'O ACA%AR,
&A(E MA"ERA%O, GON CARPIO, OSCAR AN"RI#O, 'RE" GARCIA, CESAR
OPE% a)* RUBEN BARRAME"A, respondents.
" E C I S I O N
PURISIMA, J.+
At bar is a special civil action for Certiorari
[1]
seeking the reversal of the Orer
[!]
ate
"#l$ %1& 1''! of p#blic responent Depart(ent of )abor an *(plo$(ent +nersecretar$
,ienvenio *- )ag#es(a
[%]
in .ase No- N.R / OD / 0 / '1 / 12 3 1%2-
4ro( the recors on han& it can be gathere& that5
On Dece(ber 2& 1'6'& the A,S3.,N S#pervisors *(lo$ees +nion 78the +nion9:&
represente b$ responent +nion Officers& an A,S3.,N ,roacasting .orporation 78the
.o(pan$9: signe an concl#e a .ollective ,argaining Agree(ent ;ith the follo;ing check3
off provision& to ;it5
8Article XII The [.]o(pan$ agrees to avance to the +nion a s#( e<#ivalent to 11= of the
s#( total of all the salar$ increases an signing bon#ses grante to the S#pervisors #ner this
collective ,argaining Agree(ent an #pon signing hereof to cover the +nion>s inciental
e?penses& incl#ing attorne$>s fees an representation e?penses for its organi@ation
an (sic) preparation an con#ct hereof& an s#ch avance shall be e#cte fro( the
benefits grante herein as the$ accr#e-9
On Septe(ber 1'& 1''1& Aetitioners
[B]
file ;ith the ,#rea# of )abor Relations& DO)*3
N.R& C#e@on .it$& a .o(plaint against the +nion Officers
[D]
an A,S3.,N ,roacasting
corporation& pra$ing that (1) the special assess(ent of ten percent 711=: of the s#( total of all
salar$ increases an signing bon#ses grante b$ responent .o(pan$ to the (e(bers of the
+nion be eclare illegal for fail#re to co(pl$ ;ith the labor .oe& as a(ene& partic#larl$
Article !B1& paragraphs 7g:& 7n:& an 7o:E an in #tter violation of the .onstit#tion an ,$3)a;s
of the A,S3.,N S#pervisors *(plo$ees +nionE (2) responent .o(pan$ be orere to
s#spen f#rther e#ctions fro( petitioners> salaries for their shares thereof-
In their Ans;ers& responent +nion Officers an .o(pan$ pra$e for the is(issal of the
.o(plaint for lack of (erit- The$ arg#e that the check3off provision is in accorance ;ith la;
as (aForit$ of the +nion (e(bers individually e?ec#te a written authorization giving the +nion
officers an the .o(pan$ a blanket a#thorit$ to e#ct s#bFect a(o#nt-
On "an#ar$ !1& 1''1& 0e3Arbiter Rasiali .- Ab#la iss#e the follo;ing Orer5
[G]
8HH*R*4OR*& pre(ises consiere& F#g(ent is hereb$ renere5
a: eclaring the special assess(ent of 11= of the s#( total of .,A benefits as illegalE
b: orering responents #nion officers to ref#n to the co(plainants an other #nion (e(bers
the a(o#nt of five H#nre Tho#san Aesos 7AD11&111-11: avance b$ the responent
.o(pan$ as part of the 11= s#( total of .,A benefits ;itho#t #nnecessar$ ela$E
c: orering the responent co(pan$ to stop an esist fro( f#rther (aking avances an
e#ctions fro( the #nion (e(bers> salaries their share in the avances alrea$ (ae to the
#nionE
: orering the responent .o(pan$ to re(it irectl$ to the co(plainants an other #nion
(e(bers the a(o#nt alrea$ e#cte fro( the #nion (e(bers> salaries as part of their share
in the avances alrea$ (ae to the #nion an ;hich it ha kept in tr#st #ring the penenc$
of this caseE an
e: irecting the responents #nion officers an responent .o(pan$ to s#b(it report on the
co(pliance thereof-
SO ORD*R*D-9
On appeal& responent DO)* +nersecretar$ ,ienvenio *- )ag#es(a hane o;n a
Decision
[2]
on "#l$ 1& 1''1& isposing as follo;s5
8HH*R*4OR*& the appeals are hereb$ enie& the Orer of the 0e3Arbiter is affir(e en
toto-9
On "#l$ D& 1''1& the aforesai Decision ;as receive b$ the responent +nion Officers
an responent .o(pan$- On "#l$ 1%& 1''1& the$ file their Motion for Reconsideration
stating inter alia that the <#estione ten percent 711=: special assess(ent is vali p#rs#ant to
the r#ling in !an" of the #hili$$ine Islands %&$loyee 'nion A(' vs) *(RC)
[6]
On "#l$ %1& 1''!& +nersecretar$ ,-*- )ag#es(a iss#e an Orer
[']
E resolving& th#s5
IHH*R*4OR*& the Decision ate 11 "#l$ 1''1 is hereb$ S*T ASID*- In lie# thereof& a ne;
one is hereb$ entere DIS0ISSINJ the .o(plaintKAetition for lack of (erit-I
Hence& the present petition seeking to ann#l an set asie the above3cite Orer of
p#blic responent +nersecretar$ ,-*- )ag#es(a& for being allegel$ tainte ;ith grave ab#se
of iscretion a(o#nting to lack of F#risiction-
Di the p#blic responent act ;ith grave ab#se of iscretion in iss#ing the challenge
Orer reversing his o;n Decision of "#l$ 1& 1''1L S#ch is the sole iss#e posite&;hich ;e
resolve in the negative- The petition is #n(eritorio#s-
Aetitioners clai(
[11]
that the Decision of the Secretar$ of )abor an *(plo$(ent ate
"#l$ 1& 1''1& affir(ing in toto the Orer of 0e3Arbiter Rasiali Ab#llah ate "an#ar$ %1&
1''1& cannot be a s#bFect of a (otion for reconsieration beca#se it is final an #nappealable
p#rs#ant to Section 6& R#le VIII& ,ook V of the O(nib#s R#le I(ple(enting the )abor .oe- It
is f#rther arg#e that the onl$ re(e$ of the responent +nion OfficersM is to file a petition
for certiorari ;ith this .o#rt-
Section 6& R#le VIII& ,ook V of the O(nib#s R#les I(ple(enting the )abor .oe&
provies5
IThe Secretar$ shall have fifteen 71D: calenar a$s ;ithin ;hich to ecie the appeal fro(
receipt of the recors of the case- The ecision of the Secretar$ shall be final and
ina$$eala+le-I [+nerscoring s#pplie]- 7.o((ent& p- 111:
The aforecite provision cannot be constr#e to (ean that the Decision of the p#blic
responent cannot be reconsiere since the sa(e is revie;able b$ writ of certiorari #ner
R#le GD of the R#les of .o#rt- As a r#le& the la; re<#ires a &otion for reconsideration to
enable the p#blic responent to correct his (istakes& if an$- In #earl ,) !uc" -oundation
Inc) vs) *(RC
[11]
this .o#rt hel5
IHence& the onl$ ;a$ b$ ;hich a labor case (a$ reach the S#pre(e .o#rt is thro#gh a petition
for certiorari #ner R#le GD of the R#les of .o#rt alleging lack or e?cess of F#risiction or grave
ab#se of iscretion- S#ch petition (a$ be file ;ithin a reasonable ti(e fro( receipt of the
resol#tion en$ing the &otion for reconsideration of the N)R. ecision-I [+nerscoringE
s#pplie]-
.learl$& before a petition for certiorari #ner R#le GD of the R#les of .o#rt (a$ be availe of&
the filing of a (otion for reconsieration is a conition sine .ua non to affor an opport#nit$ for
the correction of the error or (istake co(plaine of-
So also& consiering that a ecision of the Secretar$ of )abor is s#bFect to F#icial revie;
onl$ thro#gh a special civil action of certiorari an& as a r#le& cannot be resorte to ;itho#t the
aggrieve part$ having e?ha#ste a(inistrative re(eies thro#gh a &otion for
reconsideration& the aggrieve part$& (#st be allo;e to (ove for a reconsieration of the
sa(e so that he can bring a special civil action for certiorari before the S#pre(e .o#rt-
[1!]
4#rther(ore& it appears that the petitioners file ;ith the p#blic responent a Motion for
%arly Resolution
[1%]
ate "#ne !B& 1''!- Averring that private responentsM Motion for
Reconsideration i not contain s#bstantial fact#al or legal gro#ns for the reversal of s#bFect
ecision- .onse<#entl$& petitioners are no; esto$$ed fro( raising the iss#e so#ght for
resol#tion- In Alfredo Mar.uez vs) ,ecretary of (a+or&
[1B]
the .o#rt sai5
I??? The active participation of the part$ against ;ho( the action ;as bro#ght& co#ple ;ith
his fail#re to obFect to the F#risiction of the co#rt or <#asi3F#icial bo$ ;here the action is
pening& is tanta(o#nt to an invocation of that F#risiction an a ;illingness to abie b$ the
resol#tion of the case an ;ill bar sai part$ fro( later on i(p#gning the co#rt or bo$Ms
F#risiction-I
Hhat is (ore& it ;as onl$ ;hen the p#blic responents iss#e the Orer averse to the(
that the petitioners raise the <#estion for the first ti(e before this .o#rt- Obvio#sl$& it is a
patent aftertho#ght ;hich (#st be abhorre-
Aetitioners also arg#e that the check3off provision in <#estion is illegal beca#se it ;as
never s#b(itte for consieration an approval to Iall the (e(bers at a general (e(bership
(eeting calle for the p#rposeIE an f#rther allege that the for(alities (anate b$ Art- !B1&
paragraphs 7n: an 7o: of the )abor .oe& as a(ene& ;ere not co(plie ;ith-
IA check3off is a process or evice ;hereb$ the e(plo$er& on agree&ent ;ith the +nion&
recogni@e as the proper bargaining representative& or on $rior authorization fro( its
e(plo$ees& e#cts #nion #es or agenc$ fees fro( the latterMs ;ages an re(its the(
irectl$ to the #nion-I
[1D]
Its esirabilit$ in a labor organi@ation is <#ite evient- It is ass#re
thereb$ of contin#o#s f#ning- As this .o#rt has ackno;lege& the s$ste( of check3off is
pri(aril$ for the benefit of the +nion an onl$ inirectl$& for the inivi#al e(plo$ees-
The legal basis of check3off is fo#n in stat#tes or in contracts-
[1G]
The stat#tor$ li(itations
on check3offs are fo#n in Article !B1& .hapter II& Title IV& ,ook 4ive of the )abor .oe& ;hich
reas5
IRights and conditions of &e&+ershi$ in a la+or organization- 3 The follo;ing are the rights
an conitions of (e(bership in a labor organi@ation5
? ? ?
7g: No officer& agent& (e(ber of a labor organi@ation shall collect an$ fees& #es& or other
contrib#tions in its behalf or (ake an$ isb#rse(ent of its (one$ or f#ns unless he is duly
authorized $ursuant to its constitution and +y/laws-
? ? ?
7n: No special assess(ent or other e?traorinar$ fees (a$ be levie #pon the (e(bers of a
labor organi@ation unless authorized +y a written resolution of a &a0ority of all the &e&+ers of
a general &e&+ershi$ &eeting duly called for the $ur$ose- The secretar$ of the organi@ation
shall recor the (in#tes of the (eeting incl#ing the list of all (e(bers present& the votes
cast& the p#rpose of the special assess(ent or fees an the recipient of s#ch assess(ent or
fees- The recor shall be atteste to b$ the presient-
7o: Other than for (anator$ activities #ner the .oe& no special assess(ents& attorne$Ms
fees& negotiation fees or an$ other e?traorinar$ fees (a$ be checke off fro( an$ a(o#nt
#e to an e(plo$ee ;ith an individual written authorization #l$ signe b$ the e(plo$ee- The
a#thori@ation sho#l specificall$ state the a(o#nt& p#rpose an beneficiar$ of the e#ctions-
[+nerscoringE s#pplie]
Article !B1 of the )abor .oe& as a(ene& (#st be rea in relation to Article !!!&
paragraph 7b: of the sa(e la;& ;hich states5
INo attorne$Ms fees& negotiation fees or si(ilar charges of an$ kin arising fro( collective
bargaining negotiations or concl#sion of the collective agree(ent shall be i(pose on an$
inivi#al (e(ber of the contracting #nion5#rovided however that attorney1s fees &ay +e
charged against union funds in an a&ount to +e agreed u$on +y the $arties- An$ contract&
agree(ent or arrange(ent of an$ sort to the contrar$ shall be n#ll an voi-I [+nerscoringE
s#pplie]
An this co#rt el#ciate the obFect an i(port of the sai provision of la; in !an" of
#hili$$ine Islands %&$loyees 'nion 3 Association (a+or 'nion (!#I%'/A(') vs) *ational
(a+or Relations Co&&ission5
[12]
IThe .o#rt reas the afore3cite provision 7Article 222 2+3 of the (a+or Code: as prohibiting the
pa$(ent of attorne$Ms fees onl$ ;hen it is effecte thro#gh force contrib#tions fro( the
;orkers fro( their own funds as isting#ishe fro( the union funds- ???I
Noticeabl$& Article !B1 speaks of three 7%: re<#isites that (#st be co(plie ;ith in orer
that the special assess(ent for +nionMs inciental e?penses& attorne$Ms fees an
representation e?penses& as stip#late in Article NII of the .,A& be vali an #phel
na(el$5 1) a#thori@ation b$ a ;ritten resol#tion of the (aForit$ of all the (e(bers at the
general (e(bership (eeting #l$ calle for the p#rposeE (2) secretar$Ms recor of the (in#tes
of the (eetingE an (4) inivi#al ;ritten a#thori@ation for check3off #l$ signe b$ the
e(plo$ee concerne-
After a thoro#gh revie; of the recors on han& ;e fin that the three 7%: re<#isites for
the valiit$ of the ten percent 711=: special assess(ent for +nionMs inciental e?penses&
attorne$Ms fees an representation e?penses ;ere (et-
It can be gleane that on "#l$ 1B& 1'6'& the A,S3.,N S#pervisors *(plo$ee +nion hel
its general &eeting& ;hereat it ;as agree that a ten percent 711=: special assess(ent fro(
the total econo(ic package #e to ever$ (e(ber ;o#l be checke3off to cover e?penses for
negotiation& other (iscellaneo#s e?penses an attorne$Ms fees- The &inutes of the sai
(eeting ;ere recore b$ the +nionMs Secretar$& 0a- .ar(ina 0- 0#no@& an note b$ its
Aresient& Herbert Rivera-
[16]
On 0a$ !B& 1''1& sai +nion hel its 5eneral Me&+ershi$ Meeting& ;herein (aForit$ of
the (e(bers agree that Iin as (#ch as the +nion ha alrea$ pai Att$- A- Aasc#al the
a(o#nt of AD11&111-11& the sa(e (#st be share b$ all the (e(bers #ntil this is f#ll$
li<#iate-I
[1']
*ight$3five 76D: (e(bers of the sa(e +nion e?ec#te individual written authorizations for
check3off& th#s5
ITo;ars that en& I hereb$ a#thori@e the 0anage(ent anKor .ashier of A,S3.,N
,ROAD.ASTINJ .ORAORATION to e#ct fro( ($ salar$ the s#( of A%1-11 per (onth as
($ reg#lar #nion #es an sai 0anage(ent anKor .ashier are f#rther a#thori@e 7sic: to
e#ct a s#( e<#ivalent to 11= of all an ;hatever benefits that ;ill beco(e #e to (e #ner
the .O))*.TIV* ,ARJAININJ AJR**0*NT 7.,A: that (a$ be agree #pon b$ the +NION
an 0ANAJ*0*NT an to appl$ the sai s#( to the avance that 0anage(ent ;ill (ake to
o#r +nion for inciental e?penses s#ch as attorne$Ms fees& representations an other
(iscellaneo#s e?penses p#rs#ant to Article NII of the propose .,A-I
[!1]
Recors o not inicate that the aforesai check3off a#thori@ations ;ere e?ec#te b$ the
eight$3five 76D: +nion (e(bers #ner the infl#ence of force or co(p#lsion- There is then& the
pres#(ption that s#ch check3off a#thori@ations ;ere e?ec#te vol#ntaril$ b$ the signatories
thereto- Aetitioner>s contention that the a(o#nt to be e#cte is uncertain
[!1]
is not
pers#asive beca#se the check3off a#thori@ation clearl$ state that the s#( to be e#cte is
e<#ivalent to ten percent 711=: of all an ;hatever benefits (a$ accr#e #ner the .,A- In
other ;ors& altho#gh the a(o#nt is not fi?e& it is eter(inable-
Aetitioners f#rther conten that Article !B1 7n: of the )abor .oe& as a(ene& on special
assess(ents& conte(plates a general (eeting after the concl#sion of the collective bargaining
agree(ent-
S#bFect Article oes not state that the general (e(bership (eeting sho#l be calle after
the concl#sion of a collective bargaining agree(ent- *ven granting e6 gratia argu&enti that
the general (eeting sho#l be helafter the concl#sion of the .,A& s#ch re<#ire(ent ;as
co(plie ;ith since the 0a$ !B& 1''1 Jeneral 0e(bership 0eeting ;as hel after the
concl#sion of the .ollective ,argaining Agree(ent& ;hich ;as signe an concl#e on
Dece(ber 2& 1'6'-
.onsiering that the three re<#isites afforesai for the valiit$ of a special assess(ent
;ere observe or (et& ;e #phol the valiit$ of the ten percent 711=: special assess(ent
a#thori@e in Article NII of the .,A-
He also conc#r in the fining b$ p#blic responent that the ,ank of the Ahilippine Islans
*(plo$ees +nion / A)+ vs- N)R.
[!!]
is apposite in this case- In ,AI*+3A)+& the petitioners&
i(p#gne the Orer of the N)R.& holing that the valiit$ of the five percent 7D=: special
assess(ent for attorne$>s fees is contrar$ to Article !!!& paragraph 7b: of the )abor .oe& as
a(ene- The co#rt ratiocinate& th#s5
8The .o#rt reas the aforecite provision as prohibiting the pa$(ent of attorne$>s fees onl$
;hen it is effecte thro#gh forced contributions from the workers from their own funds a
isting#ishe fro( the union funds- The p#rpose of the provision is to prevent i(position on
the ;orkers of the #t$ to inivi#all$ contrib#te their respective shares in the fee to be pai
the attorne$ for his services on behalf of the #nion in its negotiations ;ith the
(anage(ent- ???9 [+nerscoring s#pplie]
Ho;ever& the p#blic responent overlooke the fact that in the sai case& the e#ction of
the stip#late five percent 7D=: of the total econo(ic benefits #ner the ne; collective
bargaining agree(ent ;as applie onl$ to ;orkers ;ho gave their individual signed
authorizations- The .o#rt e?plaine5
8??? An significantl$& the a#thori@e e#ction affecte onl$ the ;orkers ;ho aopte an
signe the resol#tion an ;ho ;ere the onl$ ones fro( ;hose benefits the e#ctions ;ere
(ae b$ ,AI- *o si&ilar deductions were ta"en fro& the other wor"ers who did not sign the
resolution and so were not +ound +y it-9 [+nerscoringE s#pplie]
Hhile the co#rt also fins (erit in the fining b$ the p#blic responents that #alacol vs)
-errer/Calle0a
[!%]
is inapropos in the case #ner scr#tin$& it oes not s#bscribe to p#blic
responent>s reasoning / that #alacolsho#l not be retroactivel$ applie to the present case in
the interest of F#stice& e<#it$ an fairpla$-
[!B]
The inapplicabilit$ of #alacol lies in the fact that it
has a ifferent fact#al (ilie# fro( the present case- In #alacol& the check3off a#thori@ation ;as
eclare invali because (aForit$ of the +nion (e(bers ha ;ithra;n their inivi#al
a#thori@ations& to ;it5
8Aaragraph 7o: on the other han re<#ires an inivi#al ;ritten a#thori@ation #l$ signe b$
ever$ e(plo$ee in orer that special assess(ent (a$be valil$ check3off- *ven ass#(ing that
the special assess(ent ;as valil$ levie p#rs#ant to paragraph 7n:& an granting that
inivi#al ;ritten a#thori@ations ;ere obtaine b$ the +nion& nevertheless there can be no
vali check3off consiering that the (aForit$ of the +nion (e(bers ha alrea$ ;ithra;n their
inivi#al a#thori@ations- A withdrawal of individual authorization is e.uivalent to no
authorization at all-9 ??? [+nerscoringE s#pplie]
In this case& the (aForit$ of the +nion (e(bers gave their inivi#al ;ritten check3off
a#thori@ations for the ten percent 711=: special assess(ent- An the$ have never ;ithra;
their inivi#al ;ritten a#thori@ations for check3off-
There is th#s cogent reason to #phol the assaile Orer& it appearing fro( the recors
of the case that t;ent$ 7!1:
[!D]
of the fort$3t;o 7B!: petitioners e?ec#te as .o(pro(ise
Agree(ent
[!G]
ratif$ing the controversial check3off provision in the .,A-
Are(ises st#iel$ consiere& ;e are of the irresistable concl#sion an& so fin& that the
r#ling in !#I%'/A(' vs) *(RC that 71: the prohibition against attorne$>s fees in Article !!!&
paragraph 7b: of the )abor .oe applies onl$ ;hen the pa$(ent of attorne$>s fees is effecte
thro#gh force contrib#tions fro( the ;orkersE an 7!: that no e#ctions (#st be taken fro(
the ;orkers ;ho i not sign the check3off a#thori@ation& applies to the case #ner
consieration-
,$ERE'ORE& the assaile Orer& ate "#l$ %1& 1''!& of DO)* +nersecretar$ ,-*-
)ag#es(a is A44IR0*D e?cept that no e#ctions shall be taken fro( the ;orkers ;ho i
not give their inivi#al ;ritten check3off a#thori@ation- No prono#nce(ent as to costs-
SO OR"ERE".
Ro&ero (Chair&an) 7itug #angani+an an 5onzaga/Reyes 88) conc#r-

EN BANC

&UANI#O A. GARCIA a)* ABER#O &.
"UMAGO,
P-././o)-r0,

1 2-r030 1


P$IIPPINE AIRINES, INC.,
R-04o)*-)..

G.R. No. 165856

?33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333?

" E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORAES, J.+

Aetitioners "#anito A- Jarcia an Alberto "- D#(ago assail the Dece(ber D& !11%
Decision an April 1G& !11B Resol#tion of the .o#rt of Appeals
[1]
in .A3J-R- SA No- G'DB1
;hich grante the petition for certiorari of responent& Ahilippine Airlines& Inc- 7AA):& an
enie petitioners> 0otion for Reconsieration& respectivel$- The ispositive portion of the
assaile Decision reas5

HH*R*4OR*& pre(ises consiere an in vie; of the foregoing& the
instant petition is hereb$ JIV*N D+* .O+RS*- The assaile Nove(ber !G&
!111 Resol#tion as ;ell as the "an#ar$ !6& !11! Resol#tion of p#blic
responent National )abor Relations .o((ission [N)R.] is hereb$
ANN+))*D an S*T ASID* for having been iss#e ;ith grave ab#se of
iscretion a(o#nting to lack or e?cess of F#risiction- .onse<#entl$& the Hrit
of *?ec#tion an the Notice of Jarnish(ent iss#e b$ the )abor Arbiter are
hereb$ like;ise ANN+))*D an S*T ASID*-

SO ORD*R*D-
[!]



The case ste((e fro( the a(inistrative charge file b$ AA) against its e(plo$ees3
herein petitioners
[%]
after the$ ;ere allegel$ ca#ght in the act of sniffing shab# ;hen a tea( of
co(pan$ sec#rit$ personnel an la; enforcers raie the AA) Technical .enter>s Toolroo(
Section on "#l$ !B& 1''D-

After #e notice& AA) is(isse petitioners on October '& 1''D for transgressing the
AA) .oe of Discipline&
[B]
pro(pting the( to file a co(plaint for illegal is(issal an a(ages
;hich ;as& b$ Decision of "an#ar$ 11& 1'''&
[D]
resolve b$ the )abor Arbiter in their favor& th#s
orering AA) to& inter alia i((eiatel$ co(pl$ ;ith the reinstate(ent aspect of the ecision-

Arior to the pro(#lgation of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision& the Sec#rities an *?change
.o((ission 7S*.: place AA) 7hereafter referre to as responent:& ;hich ;as s#ffering fro(
severe financial losses& #ner an Interi( Rehabilitation Receiver& ;ho ;as s#bse<#entl$
replace b$ a Aer(anent Rehabilitation Receiver on "#ne 2& 1'''-

4ro( the )abor Arbiter>s ecision& responent appeale to the N)R. ;hich& b$
Resol#tion of "an#ar$ %1& !111& reverse sai ecision an is(isse petitioners> co(plaint
for lack of (erit-
[G]


Aetitioners> 0otion for Reconsieration ;as enie b$ Resol#tion of April !6&
!111 an *ntr$ of "#g(ent ;as iss#e on "#l$ 1%& !111-
[2]

S#bse<#entl$ or on October D& !111& the )abor Arbiter iss#e a Hrit of *?ec#tion 7Hrit:
respecting the reinstate(ent aspect of his "an#ar$ 11& 1''' Decision& an onOctober !D&
!111& he iss#e a Notice of Jarnish(ent 7Notice:- Responent there#pon (ove to <#ash the
Hrit an to lift the Notice ;hile petitioners (ove to release the garnishe a(o#nt-

In a relate (ove& responent file an +rgent Aetition for InF#nction ;ith the N)R.
;hich& b$ Resol#tions of Nove(ber !G& !111 an "an#ar$ !6& !11!& affir(e the valiit$ of the
Hrit an the Notice iss#e b$ the )abor Arbiter +ut s#spene an referre the action to the
Rehabilitation Receiver for appropriate action-

Responent elevate the (atter to the appellate co#rt ;hich iss#e the herein
challenge Decision an Resol#tion n#llif$ing the N)R. Resol#tions on t;o gro#ns&
essentiall$ espo#sing that5 617 a s#bse<#ent fining of a vali is(issal re(oves the basis for
i(ple(enting the reinstate(ent aspect of a labor arbiter>s ecision 7the first gro#n:&
an 687 the i(possibilit$ to co(pl$ ;ith the reinstate(ent orer #e to corporate rehabilitation
provies a reasonable F#stification for the fail#re to e?ercise the options #ner Article !!% of
the )abor .oe 7the secon gro#n:-

,$ Decision of A#g#st !'& !112& this .o#rt AARTIA))O JRANT*D the present petition
an effectivel$ reinstate the N)R. Resol#tions insofar as it s#spene the proceeings& viz5

Since petitioners> clai( against AA) is a (one$ clai( for their ;ages
#ring the penenc$ of AA)>s appeal to the N)R.& the sa(e sho#l have
been s#spene pening the rehabilitation proceeings- The )abor Arbiter&
the N)R.& as ;ell as the .o#rt of Appeals sho#l have abstaine fro(
resolving petitioners> case for illegal is(issal an sho#l instea have
irecte the( to loge their clai( before AA)>s receiver-

Ho;ever& to still re<#ire petitioners at this ti(e to re3file their labor
clai( against AA) #ner pec#liar circ#(stances of the case/ that their
is(issal ;as event#all$ hel vali ;ith onl$ the (atter of reinstate(ent
pening appeal being the iss#e/ this .o#rt ee(s it legall$ e?peient to
s#spen the proceeings in this case-

HH*R*4OR*& the instant petition is AARTIA))O JRANT*D in
that the instant proceeings herein are S+SA*ND*D until further notice fro&
this Court- Accoringl$& responent Ahilippine Airlines& Inc- is hereb$
DIR*.T*D to <#arterl$ #pate the .o#rt as to the stat#s of its ongoing
rehabilitation- No costs-

SO ORD*R*D-
[6]
7Italics in the originalE #nerscoring s#pplie:

,$ 0anifestation an .o(pliance of October %1& !112& responent infor(e the .o#rt
that the S*.& b$ Orer of Septe(ber !6& !112& grante its re<#est to e?it fro( rehabilitation
proceeings-
[']

In vie; of the ter(ination of the rehabilitation proceeings& the .o#rt no; procees to
resolve the re(aining iss#e for consieration& ;hich is 9h-.h-r 4-././o)-r0 :a; co<<-c. .h-/r
9a=-0 *3r/)= .h- 4-r/o* >-.9--) .h- a>or Ar>/.-r?0 or*-r o@ r-/)0.a.-:-). 4-)*/)=
a44-a< a)* .h- NRC *-c/0/o) o2-r.3r)/)= .ha. o@ .h- a>or Ar>/.-r, )o9 .ha.
r-04o)*-). ha0 -A/.-* @ro: r-ha>/</.a./o) 4roc--*/)=0.

Amplification of the First Ground

The appellate co#rt co#nte on as its first gro#n the vie; that a s#bse<#ent fining of a
vali is(issal re(oves the basis for i(ple(enting the reinstate(ent aspect of a labor
arbiter>s ecision-

On this score& the .o#rt>s attention is ra;n to see(ingl$ ivergent ecisions
concerning reinstate(ent pening appeal or& partic#larl$& the o4./o) o@ 4a;ro<<
r-/)0.a.-:-).- On the one han is the F#rispr#ential tren as e?po#ne in a line of cases
incl#ing Air #hili$$ines Cor$) v) 9a&ora
[11]
;hile on the other is the recent case of5enuino v)
*ational (a+or Relations Co&&ission-
[11]
At the core of the see(ing ivergence is the
application of paragraph % of Article !!% of the )abor .oe ;hich reas5

In an$ event& the ecision of the )abor Arbiter reinstating a is(isse
or separate e(plo$ee& insofar as the r-/)0.a.-:-). a04-c. is concerne&
shall /::-*/a.-<; >- -A-c3.or;, 4-)*/)= a44-a<- The e(plo$ee shall
either be a(itte back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions
prevailing prior to his is(issal or separation or& at the option of the e(plo$er&
(erel$ reinstate in the pa$roll- The posting of a bon b$ the e(plo$er shall
not sta$ the e?ec#tion for reinstate(ent provie herein- 7*(phasis an
#nerscoring s#pplie:


The vie; as (aintaine in a n#(ber of cases is that5

? ? ? [E]2-) /@ .h- or*-r o@ r-/)0.a.-:-). o@ .h- a>or Ar>/.-r /0
r-2-r0-* o) a44-a<, /. /0 o></=a.or; o) .h- 4ar. o@ .h- -:4<o;-r .o
r-/)0.a.- a)* 4a; .h- 9a=-0 o@ .h- */0:/00-* -:4<o;-- *3r/)= .h-
4-r/o* o@ a44-a< 3)./< r-2-r0a< >; .h- h/=h-r co3r.- On the other han& if
the e(plo$ee has been reinstate #ring the appeal perio an s#ch
reinstate(ent orer is reverse ;ith finalit$& the e(plo$ee is not re<#ire to
rei(b#rse ;hatever salar$ he receive for he is entitle to s#ch& (ore so if he
act#all$ renere services #ring the perio-
[1!]
7*(phasis in the originalE
italics an #nerscoring s#pplie:


In other ;ors& a is(isse e(plo$ee ;hose case ;as favorabl$ ecie b$ the )abor Arbiter
is entitle to receive ;ages pening appeal #pon reinstate(ent& ;hich is i((eiatel$
e?ec#tor$- +nless there is a restraining orer& it is (inisterial #pon the )abor Arbiter to
i(ple(ent the orer of reinstate(ent an it is (anator$ on the e(plo$er to co(pl$ there;ith-
[1%]

The opposite vie; is artic#late in 5enuino ;hich states5

If the ecision of the labor arbiter is later reverse on appeal #pon the
fining that the gro#n for is(issal is vali& then .h- -:4<o;-r ha0 .h-
r/=h. .o r-B3/r- .h- */0:/00-* -:4<o;-- on payroll reinstatement .o
r-@3)* .h- 0a<ar/-0 0Ch- r-c-/2-* ;hile the case ;as pening appeal& or it
can be e#cte fro( the accr#e benefits that the is(isse e(plo$ee ;as
entitle to receive fro( hisKher e(plo$er #ner e?isting la;s& collective
bargaining agree(ent provisions& an co(pan$ practices- Ho;ever& if the
e(plo$ee ;as reinstate to ;ork #ring the penenc$ of the appeal& then the
e(plo$ee is entitle to the co(pensation receive for act#al services
renere ;itho#t nee of ref#n-

.onsiering that Jen#ino ;as not reinstate to ;ork or place on
pa$roll reinstate(ent& an her is(issal is base on a F#st ca#se& then she is
not entitle to be pai the salaries state in ite( no- % of the fallo of the
Septe(ber %& 1''B N)R. Decision-
[1B]
7*(phasis& italics an #nerscoring
s#pplie:


It has th#s been avance that there is no point in releasing the ;ages to petitioners
since their is(issal ;as fo#n to be vali& an to o so ;o#l constit#te #nF#st enrich(ent-

Arior to 5enuino& there ha been no kno;n si(ilar case containing a ispositive portion
;here the e(plo$ee ;as re<#ire to ref#n the salaries receive on pa$roll reinstate(ent- In
fact& in a catena of cases&
[1D]
the .o#rt i not orer the ref#n of salaries garnishe or
receive b$ pa$roll3reinstate e(plo$ees espite a s#bse<#ent reversal of the reinstate(ent
orer-

The earth of a#thorit$ s#pporting 5enuino is not iffic#lt to fatho( for it ;o#l
other;ise rener in#tile the rationale of reinstate(ent pening appeal-

? ? ? [T]he la; itself has lai o;n a co(passionate polic$ ;hich&
once (ore& vivifies an enhances the provisions of the 1'62 .onstit#tion on
labor an the ;orking (an-

? ? ? ?

These #ties an responsibilities of the State are i(pose not so
(#ch to e?press s$(path$ for the ;orking(an as to forcef#ll$ an
(eaningf#ll$ #nerscore labor as a pri(ar$ social an econo(ic force& ;hich
the .onstit#tion also e?pressl$ affir(s ;ith e<#al intensit$- )abor is an
inispensable partner for the nationMs progress an stabilit$-

? ? ? ?

? ? ? In short& ;ith respect to ecisions reinstating e(plo$ees& the la;
itself has eter(ine a s#fficientl$ over;hel(ing reason for its e?ec#tion
pening appeal-

? ? ? ?

? ? ? Then& b$ an p#rs#ant to the sa(e po;er 7police po;er:& the
State (a$ a#thori@e an i((eiate i(ple(entation& pening appeal& of a
ecision reinstating a is(isse or separate e(plo$ee since that saving act
is esigne to stop& altho#gh te(poraril$ since the appeal (a$ be ecie in
favor of the appellant& a contin#ing threat or anger to the s#rvival or even
the life of the is(isse or separate e(plo$ee an his fa(il$-
[1G]



#h- 0oc/a< D30./c- 4r/)c/4<-0 o@ <a>or <a9 o3.9-/=h or r-)*-r /)a44</ca><- .h- c/2/<
<a9 *oc.r/)- o@ 3)D30. -)r/ch:-). espo#se b$ "#stice Aresbitero Velasco& "r- in his
Separate Opinion- The constit#tional an stat#tor$ precepts portra$ the other;ise 8#nF#st9
sit#ation as a conition afforing f#ll protection to labor-

*ven o#tsie the theoretical trappings of the isc#ssion an into the (#nane realities
of h#(an e?perience& the 8ref#n octrine9 easil$ e(onstrates ho; a favorable ecision b$
the )abor Arbiter co#l har(& (ore than help& a is(isse e(plo$ee- The e(plo$ee& to (ake
both ens (eet& ;o#l necessaril$ have to #se #p the salaries receive #ring the
penenc$ of the appeal& onl$ to en #p having to ref#n the s#( in case of a final #nfavorable
ecision- It is (irage of a stop3gap leaing the e(plo$ee to a risk$ cliff of insolvenc$-

Avisabl$& the s#( is better left #nspent- It beco(es (ore logical an practical for the
e(plo$ee to ref#se pa$roll reinstate(ent an si(pl$ fin ;ork else;here in the interi(& if an$
is available- Notabl$& the option of pa$roll reinstate(ent belongs to the e(plo$er& even if the
e(plo$ee is able an raring to ret#rn to ;ork- Arior to 5enuino& it is #nthinkable for one to
ref#se pa$roll reinstate(ent- In the face of the gri( possibilities& the rise of concerne
e(plo$ees eclining pa$roll reinstate(ent is on the hori@on-

4#rther& the 5enuino r#ling not onl$ isregars the social F#stice principles behin the
r#le& b#t also instit#tes a sche(e #n#l$ favorable to (anage(ent- +ner s#ch sche(e& the
salaries ispense $endente lite (erel$ serve as a bon poste in install(ent b$ the
e(plo$er- 4or in the event of a reversal of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision orering reinstate(ent&
the e(plo$er gets back the sa(e a(o#nt ;itho#t having to spen orinaril$ for bon
pre(i#(s- This circ#(vents& if not irectl$ contraicts& the proscription that the 8posting of a
bon [even a cash bon] b$ the e(plo$er shall not sta$ the e?ec#tion for reinstate(ent-9
[12]

In pla$ing o;n the stra$ post#re in 5enuino re<#iring the is(isse e(plo$ee on
pa$roll reinstate(ent to ref#n the salaries in case a final ecision #phols the valiit$ of the
is(issal& the .o#rt realigns the proper co#rse of the prevailing octrine on reinstate(ent
pening appeal vis3P3vis the effect of a reversal on appeal-

Responent insists that ;ith the reversal of the )abor Arbiter>s Decision& there is no
(ore basis to enforce the reinstate(ent aspect of the sai ecision- In his Separate Opinion&
"#stice Aresbitero Velasco& "r- s#pports this arg#(ent an fins the prevailing octrine in Air
#hili$$ines an allie cases inapplicable beca#se& #nlike the present case& the ;rit of
e?ec#tion therein ;as sec#re prior to the reversal of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision-

The proposition is ten#o#s- -irst& the (atter is treate as a (ere race against ti(e- The
isc#ssion stoppe there ;itho#t consiering the ca#se of the ela$- ,econd& it re<#ires the
iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion espite the i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$ nat#re of the reinstate(ent
aspect of the ecision- In #ioneer :e6turing Cor$) v) *(RC
[16]
;hich ;as cite in #anuncillo v)
CA# #hili$$ines Inc)&
[1']
the .o#rt observe5

? ? ? The provision of Article !!% is clear that an a;ar [b$ the )abor Arbiter]
for reinstate(ent shall +e i&&ediately e6ecutory even $ending
a$$eal and the $osting of a +ond +y the e&$loyer shall not stay the
e6ecution for reinstate&ent- The legislative intent is <#ite obvio#s& i-e-& to
(ake an a;ar of reinstate(ent i((eiatel$ enforceable& even pening
appeal- #o r-B3/r- .h- a44</ca./o) @or a)* /003a)c- o@ a 9r/. o@
-A-c3./o) as prere<#isites for the e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent a;ar 9o3<*
c-r.a/)<; >-.ra; a)* r3) co3).-r .o .h- 2-r; o>D-c. a)* /).-). o@ Ar./c<-
88E& i-e-& the i((eiate e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent orer- The reason is
si(ple- An application for a ;rit of e?ec#tion an its iss#ance co#l be
ela$e for n#(ero#s reasons- A (ere contin#ance or postpone(ent of a
sche#le hearing& for instance& or an inaction on the part of the )abor Arbiter
or the N)R. co#l easil$ ela$ the iss#ance of the ;rit thereb$ setting at
na#ght the strict (anate an noble p#rpose envisione b$ Article !!%- In
other ;ors& if the re<#ire(ents of Article !!B [incl#ing the iss#ance of a ;rit
of e?ec#tion] ;ere to govern& as ;e so eclare in Maranaw& then the
e?ec#tor$ nat#re of a reinstate(ent orer or a;ar conte(plate b$ Article
!!% ;ill be #n#l$ circ#(scribe an renere ineffect#al- In enacting the
la;& the legislat#re is pres#(e to have oraine a vali an sensible la;&
one ;hich operates no f#rther than (a$ be necessar$ to achieve its specific
p#rpose- Stat#tes& as a r#le& are to be constr#e in the light of the p#rpose to
be achieve an the evil so#ght to be re(eie- ? ? ? In intro#cing a ne;
r#le on the reinstate(ent aspect of a labor ecision #ner Rep#blic Act No-
G21D& .ongress sho#l not be consiere to be in#lging in (ere se(antic
e?ercise- ? ? ?
[!1]
7Italics in the originalE e(phasis an #nerscoring s#pplie:


The .o#rt reaffir(s the prevailing principle that even if the orer of reinstate(ent of the
)abor Arbiter is reverse on appeal& it is obligator$ on the part of the e(plo$er to reinstate an
pa$ the ;ages of the is(isse e(plo$ee #ring the perio of appeal #ntil reversal b$ the
higher co#rt-
[!1]
It settles the vie; that the )abor ArbiterMs orer of reinstate(ent
is i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$ an the e(plo$er has to either re3a(it the( to ;ork #ner the sa(e
ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to their is(issal& or to reinstate the( in the pa$roll& an
that failing to e?ercise the options in the alternative& e(plo$er (#st pa$ the e(plo$ee>s
salaries-
[!!]


Amplification of the Second Ground

The re(aining iss#e& nonetheless& is resolve in the negative on the strength of the
secon gro#n relie #pon b$ the appellate co#rt in the assaile iss#ances- The .o#rt
s#stains the appellate co#rt>s fining that the pec#liar preica(ent of a corporate rehabilitation
renere it i(possible for responent to e?ercise its option #ner the circ#(stances-

The spirit of the r#le on reinstate(ent pening appeal ani(ates the proceeings once
the )abor Arbiter iss#es the ecision containing an orer of reinstate(ent- The i((eiac$ of
its e?ec#tion nees no f#rther elaboration- Reinstate(ent pening appeal necessitates its
i((eiate e?ec#tion #ring the penenc$ of the appeal& if the la; is to serve its noble
p#rpose- At the sa(e ti(e& an$ atte(pt on the part of the e(plo$er to evae or ela$ its
e?ec#tion& as observe in #anuncillo an as ;hat act#all$ transpire in;i&+erly
[!%]
Co&$osite
[!B]
Air #hili$$ines
[!D]
an Ro.uero&
[!G]
sho#l not be co#ntenance-

A@.-r .h- <a>or ar>/.-r?0 *-c/0/o) /0 r-2-r0-* >; a h/=h-r .r/>3)a<, .h- -:4<o;--
:a; >- >arr-* @ro: co<<-c./)= .h- accr3-* 9a=-0, /@ /. /0 0ho9) .ha. .h- *-<a; /)
-)@orc/)= .h- r-/)0.a.-:-). 4-)*/)= a44-a< 9a0 9/.ho3. @a3<. o) .h- 4ar. o@ .h-
-:4<o;-r.

The test is t;o3fol5 71: there (#st be act#al ela$ or the fact that the orer of
reinstate(ent pening appeal ;as not e?ec#te prior to its reversalE an 7!: the ela$ (#st not
be #e to the e(plo$er>s #nF#stifie act or o(ission- If the ela$ is #e to the e(plo$er>s
#nF#stifie ref#sal& the e(plo$er (a$ still be re<#ire to pa$ the salaries not;ithstaning the
reversal of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision-

In 5enuino& there ;as no sho;ing that the e(plo$er ref#se to reinstate the e(plo$ee&
;ho ;as the Treas#r$ Sales Division Hea& #ring the short span of fo#r (onths or fro( the
pro(#lgation on 0a$ !& 1''B of the )abor Arbiter>s Decision #p to the pro(#lgation
on Septe(ber %& 1''B of the N)R. Decision- Notabl$& the for(er N)R. R#les of Aroce#re
i not la$ o;n a (echanis( to pro(ptl$ effect#ate the self3e?ec#tor$ orer of reinstate(ent&
(aking it iffic#lt to establish that the e(plo$er act#all$ ref#se to co(pl$-

In a sit#ation like that in International Container :er&inal ,ervices Inc) v) *(RC
[!2]
;here
it ;as allege that the e(plo$er ;as ;illing to co(pl$ ;ith the orer an that the e(plo$ee
opte not to p#rs#e the e?ec#tion of the orer& the .o#rt #phel the self3e?ec#tor$ nat#re of
the reinstate(ent orer an r#le that the salar$ a#to(aticall$ accr#e fro( notice of the
)abor ArbiterMs orer of reinstate(ent #ntil its #lti(ate reversal b$ the N)R.- It ;as later
iscovere that the e(plo$ee inee (ove for the iss#ance of a ;rit b#t ;as not acte #pon
b$ the )abor Arbiter- In that scenario ;here the ela$ ;as ca#se b$ the )abor Arbiter& it ;as
r#le that the inaction of the )abor Arbiter ;ho faile to act #pon the e(plo$ee>s (otion for the
iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion (a$ no longer aversel$ affect the ca#se of the is(isse
e(plo$ee in vie; of the self3e?ec#tor$ nat#re of the orer of reinstate(ent-
[!6]

The ne; N)R. R#les of Aroce#re& ;hich took effect on "an#ar$ 2& !11G& no; re<#ire
the e(plo$er to s#b(it a report of co(pliance ;ithin 11 calenar a$s fro( receiptof the )abor
Arbiter>s ecision&
[!']
isobeience to ;hich clearl$ enotes a ref#sal to reinstate- The
e(plo$ee nee not file a (otion for the iss#ance of the ;rit of e?ec#tion since the )abor
Arbiter shall thereafter &otu $ro$rio iss#e the ;rit- ,/.h .h- )-9 r3<-0 /) 4<ac-, .h-r- /0
har*<; a); */@@/c3<.; /) *-.-r:/)/)= .h- -:4<o;-r?0 /).ra)0/=-)c- /) /::-*/a.-<;
co:4<;/)= 9/.h .h- or*-r-

In the case at bar& petitioners e?erte efforts
[%1]
to e?ec#te the )abor Arbiter>s orer of
reinstate(ent #ntil the$ ;ere able to sec#re a ;rit of e?ec#tion& albeit iss#e onOctober D&
!111 after the reversal b$ the N)R. of the )abor Arbiter>s ecision- Technicall$& there ;as still
act#al ela$ ;hich brings to the <#estion of ;hether the ela$ ;as #e to
responent>s #nF#stifie act or o(ission-

It is apparent that there ;as inaction on the part of responent to reinstate the(& b#t
;hether s#ch o(ission ;as F#stifie epens on the onset of the e?igenc$ of corporate
rehabilitation-

It is settle that #pon appoint(ent b$ the S*. of a rehabilitation receiver& all actions for
clai(s before an$ co#rt& trib#nal or boar against the corporation shall i$so 0ure be s#spene-
[%1]
As state earl$ on& #ring the penenc$ of petitioners> co(plaint before the )abor Arbiter&
the S*. place responent #ner an Interi( Rehabilitation Receiver- After the )abor Arbiter
renere his ecision& the S*. replace the Interi( Rehabilitation Receiver ;ith a Aer(anent
Rehabilitation Receiver-

.ase la; recogni@es that #nless there is a restraining orer& the i(ple(entation of the
orer of reinstate(ent is (inisterial an (anator$-
[%!]
This inF#nction or s#spension of clai(s
b$ legislative fiat
[%%]
partakes of the nat#re of a restraining orer that constit#tes a legal
F#stification for responent>s non3co(pliance ;ith the reinstate(ent orer- Responent>s
fail#re to e?ercise the alternative options of act#al reinstate(ent an pa$roll reinstate(ent ;as
th#s F#stifie- S#ch being the case& responent>s obligation to pa$ the salaries pening
appeal& as the nor(al effect of the non3e?ercise of the options& i not attach-

Hhile reinstate(ent pening appeal ai(s to avert the contin#ing threat or anger to the
s#rvival or even the life of the is(isse e(plo$ee an his fa(il$& it oes not conte(plate the
perio ;hen the e(plo$er3corporation itself is si(ilarl$ in a 0udicially &onitored state of being
res#scitate in orer to s#rvive-

The parallelis( bet;een a F#icial orer of corporation rehabilitation as a F#stification for
the non3e?ercise of its options& on the one han& an a clai( of act#al an i((inent
s#bstantial losses as gro#n for retrench(ent& on the other han& stops at the re line on the
financial state(ents- ,e$on the analogo#s conition of financial gloo(& as isc#sse b$
"#stice )eonaro C#is#(bing in his Separate Opinion& are (ore salient istinctions- +nlike
the gro#n of s#bstantial losses conte(plate in a retrench(ent case& the state of corporate
rehabilitation ;as F#iciall$ pre3eter(ine b$ a co(petent co#rt an not for(#late for the
first ti(e in this case b$ responent-

0ore i(portantl$& there are legal effects arising fro( a F#icial orer placing a
corporation #ner rehabilitation- Responent ;as& #ring the perio (aterial to the case&
effectivel$ eprive of the alternative choices #ner Article !!% of the )abor .oe& not onl$ b$
virt#e of the stat#tor$ inF#nction b#t also in vie; of the interi( relin<#ish(ent of (anage(ent
control to give ;a$ to the f#ll e?ercise of the po;ers of the rehabilitation receiver- Ha there
been no nee to rehabilitate& responent (a$ have opte for act#al ph$sical reinstate(ent
pening appeal to opti(i@e the #tili@ation of reso#rces- Then again& tho#gh the (anage(ent
(a$ think this ;ise& the rehabilitation receiver (a$ ecie other;ise& not to (ention the
s#bsistence of the inF#nction on clai(s-

In s#(& the obligation to pa$ the e(plo$ee>s salaries #pon the e(plo$er>s fail#re to
e?ercise the alternative options #ner Article !!% of the )abor .oe is not a har an fast r#le&
consiering the inherent constraints of corporate rehabilitation-

,$ERE'ORE& the petition is PAR#IA! "ENIE"- Insofar as the .o#rt of Appeals
Decision of Dece(ber D& !11% an Resol#tion of April 1G& !11B ann#lling the N)R.
Resol#tions affir(ing the valiit$ of the Hrit of *?ec#tion an the Notice of Jarnish(ent are
concerne& the .o#rt fins no reversible error-

SO ORDERED.
*N ,AN.
[G.R. No. 118651. Oc.o>-r 16, 199F]
PIONEER #EG#URI%ING CORP. a)*Cor &UIANO IM, petitioners, vs. NA#IONA ABOR
REA#IONS COMMISSION, PIONEER #EG#URI%ING ,OR(ERS UNION a)*
OUR"ES A. "E &ESUS, respondents.
" E C I S I O N
'RANCISCO, J.+
The facts are as follo;s5
Arivate responent )o#res A- e "es#s is petitioners> reviserKtri((er since 1'61- As
reviserKtri((er& e "es#s base her assigne ;ork on a paper note poste b$ petitioners- The
poste paper ;hich contains the corresponing price for the ;ork to be acco(plishe b$ a
;orker is ientifie b$ its A-O- N#(ber- On A#g#st 1D& 1''!& e "es#s ;orke on A-O- No-
%6D% b$ tri((ing the cloths> ribs- She thereafter s#b(itte tickets corresponing to the ;ork
one to her s#pervisor- Three a$s later& e "es#s receive fro( petitioners> personnel
(anager a (e(oran#( re<#iring her to e?plain ;h$ no isciplinar$ action sho#l be taken
against her for ishonest$ an ta(pering of official recors an oc#(ents ;ith the intention of
cheating as A-O- No- %6D% allegel$ re<#ire no tri((ing- The (e(oran#( also place her
#ner preventive s#spension for thirt$ a$s starting fro( A#g#st 1'& 1''!- In her han;ritten
e?planation& e "es#s (aintaine that she (erel$ co((itte a (istake in tri((ing A-O- No-
%6D% as it has the sa(e st$le an esign as A-O- No- %6!B ;hich has an attache price list for
tri((ing the ribs an a(itte that she (a$ have been negligent in pres#(ing that the sa(e
;ork ;as to be one ;ith A-O- No- %6D%& b#t not for ishonest$ or ta(pering Aetitioners>
personnel epart(ent& nonetheless& ter(inate her fro( e(plo$(ent an sent her a notice of
ter(ination ate Septe(ber 16& 1''!-
On Septe(ber !!& 1''!& e "es#s file a co(plaint for illegal is(issal against
petitioners- The )abor Arbiter ;ho hear the case note that e "es#s ;as a(pl$ accore
proce#ral #e process in her ter(ination fro( service- Nevertheless& after observing that e
"es#s (ae so(e f#rther tri((ing on A-O- No- %6D% an that her is(issal ;as not F#stifie&
the )abor Arbiter hel petitioners g#ilt$ of illegal is(issal- Aetitioners ;ere accoringl$
orere to reinstate e "es#s to her previo#s position ;itho#t loss of seniorit$ rights an ;ith
f#ll back;ages fro( the ti(e of her s#spension on A#g#st 1'& 1''!- Dissatisfie ;ith the
)abor Arbiter>s ecision& petitioners appeale to the p#blic responent National )abor
Relations .o((ission 7N)R.:- In its "#l$ !1& 1''B ecision& the N)R.
[1]
r#le that e "es#s
;as negligent in pres#(ing that the ribs of A-O- No- %6D% sho#l like;ise be tri((e for
having the sa(e st$le an esign as A-O- No- %6!B& th#s petitioners cannot be entirel$ fa#lte
for is(issing e "es#s- The N)R. eclare that the stat#s .uo bet;een the( sho#l be
(aintaine an affir(e the )abor Arbiter>s orer of reinstate(ent& b#t ;itho#t
back;ages- The N)R. f#rther 8irecte petitioner to pa$ e "es#s her back salaries fro( the
ate she file her (otion for e?ec#tion on Septe(ber !1& 1''% #p to the ate of the
pro(#lgation of [the] ecision-9
[!]
Aetitioners file their partial (otion for reconsieration ;hich
the N)R. enie& hence this petition anchore s#bstantiall$ on the allege N)R.>s error in
holing that e "es#s is entitle to reinstate(ent an back salaries- On 0arch G& 1''G&
petitioners file its s#pple(ent to the petition a(plif$ing f#rther their arg#(ents- In a
resol#tion ate 4ebr#ar$ !1& 1''D& the .o#rt re<#ire responents to co((ent
thereon- Arivate responent e "es#s an the Office of the Solicitor Jeneral& in behalf of
p#blic responent N)R.& s#bse<#entl$ file their co((ents- Thereafter& petitioners file t;o
reFoiners [sho#l be replies] to responents> respective co((ents- Responents in #e ti(e
file their reFoiners-
These are t;o interrelate an cr#cial iss#es& na(el$5 71: ;hether or not e "es#s ;as
illegall$ is(isse& an 7!: ;hether or not an orer for reinstate(ent nees a ;rit of e?ec#tion-
Aetitioners insist that the N)R. gravel$ ab#se its iscretion in holing that e "es#s is
entitle to reinstate(ent to her previo#s position for she ;as not illegall$ is(isse in the first
place- In s#pport thereof& petitioners <#ote portions of the N)R. ecision ;hich state that
8responent [petitioners herein] cannot be entirel$ fa#lte for is(issing the co(plaint9
[%]
an
that there ;as 8no illegal is(issal to speak of in the case at bar9-
[B]
Aetitioners f#rther a that
e "es#s breache the tr#st repose in her& hence her is(issal fro( service is proper on the
basis of loss of confience& citing as a#thorit$ the cases of <cean :er&inal ,ervices Inc) v)
*(RC& 1'2 S.RA B'1E Coca/Cola !ottlers #hil) Inc) v) *(RC& 12! S.RA 2D1& an #iedad v)
(anao del *orte %lectric Coo$erative&
[D]
1DB S.RA D11-
The arg#(ents lack (erit-
The entire paragraph ;hich co(prises the gist of the N)R.>s ecision fro( ;here
petitioners erive an isolate the afore<#ote portions of the N)R.>s observation reas in
f#ll as follo;s5
8He cannot f#ll$ s#bscribe to the co(plainant>s clai( that she tri((e the ribs of
AO%6D% in the light of the s;orn state(ent of her s#pervisor Rebecca 0aarcos
7Rollo& p- GB: that no tri((ing ;as necessar$ beca#se the ribs ;ere alrea$ of the
proper length- The co(plainant herself a(itte in her sin#(paang sala$sa$ 7Rollo&
p- BD: that 8Aking napansin na hini panta$3panta$ ang lapa ng (ga ribs AO%6D% 3
(as (aigsi ang nag#pit ko sa (ga ribs ng AO%6D% ka$sa sa (ga ribs ng (ga
nakaraang AO>s- The co(plaint being an e?perience reviserKtri((er for al(ost
t;elve 71!: $ears sho#l have calle the attention of her s#pervisor regaring her
observation of AO%6D%- It sho#l be note that co(plainant ;as tr$ing to clai( as
pro#ction o#tp#t BB2 pieces of tri((e ribs of AO%6D% ;hich responents insists
that co(plainant i not o an$- She ;as therefore negligent in pres#(ing that the
ribs of AO%6D% sho#l like;ise be tri((e for having the sa(e st$le an esign as
AO%6!B- .o(plainant cannot pass on the bla(e to her s#pervisor ;ho( she
clai(e checke the sai tickets prior to the s#b(ission to the Acco#nting
Depart(ent- As e?plaine b$ responent& ;hat the s#pervisor oes is (erel$ not
the s#b(ission of tickets an o so(e checking before for;aring the sa(e to the
Acco#nting Depart(ent- It ;as never isp#te that it is the Acco#nting Depart(ent
;ho oes the etaile checking an co(p#tation of the tickets as has been the
co(pan$ polic$ an practice- ,ase on the foregoing an consiering that
responent cannot be entirel$ fa#lte for is(issing co(plainant as the co(plainant
herself ;as also negligent in the perfor(ance of her Fob& He hereb$ r#le that
stat#s .uo bet;een the( sho#l be (aintaine as a (atter of co#rse- He th#s
affir( the ecision of )abor Arbiter reinstating the co(plainant b#t ;itho#t
back;ages- The a;ar of back;ages in general are grante on gro#ns of e<#it$
for earnings ;hich a ;orker or e(plo$ee has lost #e to his illegal
is(issal- 7Inophil Acr$lic 0fg- .orporation vs) N)R.& J-R- No- 'GB66 Septe(ber
!2& 1''%: There being no illegal is(issal to speak in the case at bar& the a;ar for
back;ages sho#l necessaril$ be elete-9
[G]
He note that the N)R.>s ecision is <#ite categorical in fining that e "es#s ;as (erel$
negligent in the perfor(ance of her #t$- S#ch negligence& the )abor Arbiter elineate& ;as
bro#ght abo#t b$ the petitioners> plain i(provience- Th#s5
8After caref#l assess(ent of the allegations an oc#(ents available on recor& ;e
are convince that the penalt$ of is(issal ;as not F#stifie-
8At the o#tset& it is re(arkable that responents i not en$ nor isp#te that A-O-
%6D% has the sa(e st$le an esign as A-O- %6!BE that A-O- %6!B ;as (ae as
g#ie for the ;ork one on A-O- %6D%E an& (ost i(portantl$& that the notation
correction on A-O- %6!B ;as (ae onl$ after the error ;as iscovere b$
responents> Acco#nting Depart(ent-
8,e s#re that as it (a$& the fact#al iss#e in this case is ;hether or not co(plaint
tri((e the ribs of A-O- %6D%L
8Responents (aintaine that she i not beca#se the recor in Acco#nting
Depart(ent allegel$ inicates that no tri((ing is to be one on A-O-
%6D%- ,asicall$& this allegation is #ns#bstantiate-
8It (#st be e(phasi@e that in ter(ination cases the b#rent of proof rests #pon the
e(plo$er-
8In the instant case& responents> (ere allegation that A-O- %6D% nee not be
tri((e oes not satisf$ the proof re<#ire to ;arrant co(plainant>s is(issal-
8No;& granting that the Acco#nting recor is correct& ;e still believe that co(plainant
i so(e f#rther tri((ing on A-O- %6D% base on the follo;ing gro#ns5
84irst& S#pervisor Rebecca 0aarcos ;ho o#ght to kno; the ;ork to be perfor(e
beca#se she ;as in3charge of assigning Fobs& reporte no ano(all$ ;hen the
tickets ;ere s#b(itte to her-
8Incientall$& s#pervisor 0aarcos testi(on$ is s#spect beca#se if she co#l recall
;hat she orere the co(plainant to o seven 72: (onths ago 7to revise the collars
an plackets of shirts: there ;as no reason for her not to etect the allege
ta(pering at the ti(e co(plainant s#b(itte her tickets& after all& that ;as part of her
Fob& if not her (ain Fob-
8Seconl$& she i not e?cee her <#ota& other;ise she co#l have si(pl$ aske for
(ore-
8That her o#tp#t ;as re(arkabl$ big granting (isinterprete it is tr#e& is ;ell
e?plaine in that the parts she ha tri((e ;ere lesser co(pare to those ;hich
she ha c#t before-
8In this connection& responents (isinterprete the han;ritten e?planation of the
co(plainant ate !1 A#g#st 1''!& beca#se the letter never a(its that she never
tri((e A-O- %6D%& on the contrar$ the follo;ing sentence&
QSa kat#na$an nakapagba;as na(an talaga ako na i ko inaasahang inalis na pala
ang pres$o ng Sec- ' A-O- %6D% na ito->
is cr$stal clear that she i tri( the ribs on A-O- %6D%-9
[2]
Jleane either fro( the )abor Arbiter>s observations or fro( the N)R.>s assess(ent& it
istinctl$ appears that petitioners> acc#sation of ishonest$ an ta(pering of official recors
an oc#(ents ;ith intention of cheating against e "es#s ;as not s#bstantiate b$ clear an
convincing evience- Aetitioners si(pl$ faile& both before the )abor Arbiter an the N)R.& to
ischarge the b#rent of proof an to valil$ F#stif$ e "es#s> is(issal fro( service- The la;&
in this light& irects the e(plo$ers& s#ch as herein petitioners& not to ter(inate the services of
an e(plo$ee e?cept for a F#st or a#thori@e ca#se #ner the )abor .oe-
[6]
)ack of a F#st
ca#se in the is(issal fro( service of an e(plo$ee& as in this case& reners the is(issal
illegal& espite the e(plo$er>s observance of proce#ral #e process-
[']
An ;hile the N)R.
state that 8there ;as no illegal is(issal to speak of in the case at bar9 an that petitioners
cannot be entirel$ fa#lte therefor& sai state(ents are inorinate prono#nce(ents ;hich i
not re(ove the assaile is(issal fro( the real( of illegalit$- Neither can these
prono#nce(ents precl#e #s fro( holing other;ise-
He also fin the i(position of the e?tre(e penalt$ of is(issal against e "es#s as
certainl$ harsh an grossl$ isproportionate to the negligence co((itte& especiall$ ;here
sai e(plo$ee hols a faithf#l an an #ntarnishe t;elve3$ear service recor- Hhile an
e(plo$er has the inherent right to iscipline its e(plo$ees& ;e have al;a$s hel that this right
(#st al;a$s be e?ercise h#(anel$& an the penalt$ it (#st i(pose sho#l be co((ens#rate
to the offense involve an to the egree of its infraction-
[11]
The e(plo$er sho#l bear in (in
that& in the e?ercise of s#ch right& ;hat is at stake is not onl$ the e(plo$ee>s position b#t her
livelihoo as ;ell-
*<#all$ #n(eritorio#s is petitioners> assertion that the is(issal is F#stifie on the basis of
loss of confience- Hhile loss of confience& as correctl$ arg#e b$ petitioners& is one of the
vali gro#ns for ter(ination of e(plo$(ent& the sa(e& ho;ever& cannot be #se as a prete?t
to vinicate each an ever$ instance of #n;arrante is(issal- To be a vali gro#n& it (#st
sho;n that the e(plo$ee concerne is responsible for the (iscon#ct or infraction an that the
nat#re of his participation therein renere hi( absol#tel$ #n;orth$ of the tr#st an confience
e(ane b$ his position-
[11]
In this cae& petitioners ;ere #ns#ccessf#l in establishing their
acc#sations of ishonest$ an ta(pering of recors ;ith intention of cheating- Inee& even if
petitioners> allegations against e "es#s ;ere tr#e& the$ F#st the sa(e faile to prove that her
position nees the contin#e an #nceasing tr#st of her e(plo$ee>s f#nctions-
[1!]
S#rel$& e
"es#s ;ho occ#pies the position of a reviserKtri((er oes not re<#ire the petitioners> perpet#al
an f#ll confience- In this regar& petitioners> reliance on the cases of <cean :er&inal
,ervices Inc) v) *(RCE Coca/Cola !ottlers #hil) Inc) v) *(RCE an #iedad v) (anao del *orte
%lectric Coo$erative& ;hich ;hen per#se involve positions that re<#ire the e(plo$ers> f#ll
tr#st an confience& is ;holl$ (isplace- In Ocean Terminal Services& for instance& the
is(isse e(plo$ee ;as esignate as e?peiter an canvasser ;hose responsibilit$ is
(ainl$ to (ake e(ergenc$ proc#re(ents of tools an e<#ip(ents an ;as entr#ste ;ith the
necessar$ cash for b#$ing the(- The case of oca!ola "ottlers& on the other han&
involves a sales agent ;hose Fob e?poses hi( to the ever$a$ financial transactions involving
the e(plo$er>s goos an f#ns& ;hile that of #iedad concerns a bill collector ;ho essentiall$
hanles the e(plo$er>s cash collections- +no#btel$& the position of a reviserKtri((er co#l
not be e<#ate ;ith that of a canvasser& sales agent& or a bill collector- ,esies& the involve
e(plo$ees in the three afore(entione cases ;ere clearl$ proven g#ilt$ of infractions #nlike
private responent in the case at bar- Th#s& petitioners epenence on these cite cases is
inacc#rate& to sa$ the least- 0ore& ;hether or not e "es#s (eets the a$>s <#ota of ;ork she&
F#st the sa(e& is pai the ail$ (ini(#( ;age-
[1%]
.orollar$ to o#r eter(ination that e "es#s ;as illegall$ is(isse is her i(perative
entitle(ent to reinstate(ent an back;ages as (anate b$ la;-
[1B]
Hhence& ;e (ove to the
secon iss#e& i-e-& ;hether or not an orer for reinstate(ent nees a ;rit of e?ec#tion-
Aetitioners> theor$ is that an orer for reinstate(ent is not self3e?ec#tor$- The$ stress
that there (#st be a ;rit of e?ec#tion ;hich (a$ be iss#e b$ the N)R. or b$ the )abor
Arbiter &otu $ro$rio or on (otion of an intereste part$- The$ f#rther (aintain that even if a
;rit of e?ec#tion ;as iss#e& a ti(el$ appeal co#ple b$ the posting of appropriate
s#perseeas bon& ;hich the$ i in this case& effectivel$ forestalle an sta$e e?ec#tion of
the reinstate(ent orer of the )abor Arbiter- As s#pporting a#thorit$& petitioners e(phaticall$
cite an bank on the case of Maranaw =otel Resort Cor$oration (Century #ar" ,heraton
Manila) v) *(RC& !%6 S.RA 1'1-
Arivate responent e "es#s& for her part& (aintains that petitioners sho#l have
reinstate her i((eiatel$ after the ecision of the )abor Arbiter orering her reinstate(ent
;as pro(#lgate since the la; (anates that an orer for reinstate(ent is i((eiatel$
e?ec#tor$- An appeal& she sa$s& co#l not sta$ the e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent orer for she
co#l either be a(itte back to ;ork or (erel$ reinstate in the pa$roll ;itho#t nee of a ;rit
of e?ec#tion- De "es#s arg#es that a ;rit of e?ec#tion is necessar$ onl$ for the enforce(ent
of ecisions& orers& or a;ars ;hich have ac<#ire finalit$- In effect& e "es#s is #rging the
.o#rt to re3e?a(ine the r#ling lai o;n in $aranaw-
Article !!% of the )abor .oe& as a(ene b$ R-A- No- G21D ;hich took effect on 0arch
!1& 1'6'& pertinentl$ provies5
8ART- !!%- Appeal- 33Decisions& a;ars& or orers of the )abor Arbiter are final an
e?ec#tor$ #nless appeale to the .o((ission b$ an$ or both parties ;ithin ten 711:
calenar a$s fro( receipt of s#ch ecisions& a;ars& or orers- S#ch appeal (a$be
entertaine onl$ on an$ of the follo;ing gro#ns5
??? ???
???
8In an event& the ecision of the )abor Arbiter reinstating a is(isse or separate
e(plo$ee& insofar as the reinstate(ent aspect is concerne& shall i((eiatel$ be
e?ec#tor$& even pening appeal- The e(plo$ee shall either be a(itte back to ;ork
#ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or separation or&
at the option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reistate in the pa$roll- The posting of a bon
b$ the e(plo$er shall not sta$ the e?ec#tion for reinstate(ent provie herein-
??? ???
???
He initiall$ interprete the afore<#ote provision in Inciong v) *(RC-
[1D]
The
.o#rt
[1G]
(ae this brief co((ent5
8The ecision of the )abor Arbiter in this case ;as renere on Dece(ber 16& 1'66&
or three 7%: (onths before Article !!% of the )abor .oe ;as a(ene b$ Rep#blic
Act G21D 7;hich beca(e la; on 0arch !1& 1'6':& proviing that a ecision of the
)abor Arbiter orering the reinstate(ent of a is(isse or separate e(plo$ee shall
be i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$ insofar as the reinstate(ent aspect is concerne& an the
posting of an appeal bon b$ the e(plo$er shall not sta$ s#ch e?ec#tion- Since this
ne; la; contains no provision giving it retroactive effect 7Art- B& .ivil .oe:& the
a(en(ent (a$ not be applie to this case-9
;hich the .o#rt aopte an applie in Callanta v) *(RC-
[12]
In 9a&+oanga City >ater ?istrict
v) !uat&
[16]
the .o#rt constr#e Article !!% to (ean e?actl$ ;hat it sa$s- He sai5
8+ner the sai provision of la;& the ecision of the )abor Arbiter reinstating a
is(isse or separate e(plo$ee insofar as the reinstate(ent aspect is concerne&
shall be i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$& even pening appeal- The e(plo$er shall reinstate
the e(plo$ee concerne either b$5 7a: act#all$ a(itting hi( back to ;ork #ner the
sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or separationE or 7b: at the
option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reinstating hi( in the pa$roll- I((eiate
reinstate(ent is (anate an is not sta$e b$ the fact that the e(plo$er has
appeale& or has poste a cash or s#ret$ bon pening appeal-9
[1']
He e?presse a si(ilar vie; a $ear earlier in Medina v) Consolidated !roadcasting ,yste&
(C!,) ?9>X
[!1]
an lai o;n the r#le that an e(plo$er ;ho fails to co(pl$ ;ith an orer of
reinstate(ent (akes hi( liable for the e(plo$ee>s salaries- Th#s5
8Aetitioners constr#e the above paragraph to (ean that the ref#sal of the e(plo$er to reinstate
an e(plo$ee as irecte in an e?ec#tor$ orer of reinstate(ent ;o#l (ake it liable to pa$ the
latter>s salaries- This interpretation is correct- +ner Article !!% of the )abor .oe& as
a(ene& an e(plo$er has t;o options in orer for hi( to co(pl$ ;ith an orer of
reinstate(ent& ;hich is i((eiatel$ e?ec#tor$& even pening appeal- 4irstl$& he can a(it the
is(isse e(plo$ee back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his
is(issal or separation or to a s#bstantiall$ e<#ivalent position if the for(er position is alrea$
fille #p as ;e have r#le in 'nion of ,u$ervisors (R!) *A:' vs) ,ec) of (a+or& 1!6 S.RA
BB! [1'6B]E an #edroso vs) Castro& 1B1 S.RA !D! [1'6G]- Seconl$& he can reinstate the
e(plo$ee (erel$ in the pa$roll- 4ailing to e?ercise an$ of the above options& the e(plo$er can
be co(pelle #ner pain of conte(pt& to pa$ instea the salar$ of the e(plo$ee- This
interpretation is (ore in consonance ;ith the constit#tional protection to labor 7Section %& Art-
NIII& 1'62 Constitution)- The right of a person to his labor is ee(e to be propert$ ;ithin the
(eaning of the constit#tional g#arant$ that no one shall be eprive of life& libert$& an
propert$ ;itho#t #e process of la;- Therefore& he sho#l be protecte against an$ arbitrar$
an #nF#st eprivation of his Fob 7!ondoc vs) #eo$le@s !an" and :rust Co) Inc)& 11% S.RA D''
[1'61]:- The e(plo$ee sho#l not be left ;itho#t an$ re(e$ in case the e(plo$er
#nreasonabl$ ela$s reinstate(ent- Therefore& ;e hol that the #nF#stifie ref#sal of the
e(plo$er to reinstate an illegall$ is(isse e(plo$ee entitles the e(plo$ee to pa$(ent of his
salaries ? ? ?-9
[!1]
The .o#rt& ho;ever& eviate fro( this constr#ction in the case of $aranaw- Reinterpreting
the i(port of Article !!% in $aranaw& the .o#rt
[!!]
eclare that the reinstate(ent aspect of the
)abor Arbiter>s ecision nees a ;rit of e?ec#tion as it is not self3e?ec#tor$& a eclaration the
.o#rt recentl$ reiterate an aopte in Archilles Manufacturing Cor$) v) *(RC-
[!%]
He note that prior to the enact(ent of R-A- No- G21D& Article !!%
[!B]
of the )abor .oe
contains no provision ealing ;ith the reinstate(ent of an illegall$ is(isse e(plo$ee- The
a(en(ent intro#ce b$ R-A- No- G21D is an innovation an a far epart#re fro( the ol la;
inicating therb$ the legislat#re>s #ne<#ivocal intent to insert a ne; r#le that ;ill govern the
reinstate(ent aspect of a ecision or resol#tion in an$ given labor isp#te- In fact& the la; as
no; ;ore e(plo$s the phrase 8shall i((eiatel$ be e?ec#tor$9 ;itho#t <#alification
e(phasi@ing the nee for pro(pt co(pliance- As a r#le& 8shall9 in a stat#te co((onl$ enotes
an i(perative obligation an is inconsistent ;ith the iea of iscretion
[!D]
an that the
pres#(ption is that the ;or 8shall9& ;hen #se in a stat#te& is (anator$-
[!G]
An appeal or
posting of bon& b$ plain (anate of the la;& co#l not even forestall nor sta$ the e?ec#tor$
nat#re of an orer of reinstate(ent- The la;& (oreover& is #na(big#o#s an clear- Th#s& it
(#st be applie accoring to its plain an obvio#s (eaning& accoring to its e?press
ter(s- In 5lo+e/Mac"ay Ca+le and Radio Cor$oration v) *(RC&
[!2]
;e hel that5
8+ner the principles of stat#tor$ constr#ction& if a stat#te is clear& plain an free fro(
a(big#it$& it (#st be given its literal (eaning an applie ;itho#t atte(pte
interpretation- This plain3(eaning r#le or ver+a legiserive fro( the (a?i( inde6 ani&i
ser&o est 7speech is the ine? of intention: rests on the vali pres#(ption that the ;ors
e(plo$e b$ the legislat#re in a stat#te correctl$ e?press its intent b$ the #se of s#ch ;ors as
are fo#n in the stat#te- 7er+a legis non est recedendu&& or fro( the ;ors of a stat#te there
sho#l be no epart#re-9
[!6]
An in confor(it$ ;ith the e?ec#tor$ nat#re of the reinstate(ent orer& R#le V& Section 1G 7%:
of the Ne; R3<-0 o@ Proc-*3r- o@ .h- NRC 0.r/c.<; r-B3/r-0 .h- a>or Ar>/.-r .o */r-c.
.h- -:4<o;-r .o /::-*/a.-<; r-/)0.a.- .h- */0:/00-* -:4<o;--- Th#s5
8In case the ecision incl#es an orer of reinstate(ent& the )abor Arbiter shall irect the
e(plo$er to i((eiatel$ reinstate the is(isse or separate e(plo$ee even pening
appeal- The orer of reinstate(ent shall inicate that the e(plo$ee shall either be a(itte
back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or
separation or& at the option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reinstate in the pa$roll-9
In eclaring that reinstate(ent orer is not self3e?ec#tor$ an nees a ;rit of e?ec#tion&
the .o#rt& in $aranaw& averte to the r#le provie #ner Article !!B- He sai5
8It (#st be stresse& ho;ever& that altho#gh the reinstate(ent aspect of the
ecision is i&&ediately e6ecutory& it oes not follo; that it is self/e6ecutory- There
(#st be a ;rit of e?ec#tion ;hich (a$ be iss#e&otu $ro$rio or on (otion of an
intereste part$- Article !!B of the )abor .oe provies5
QART- !!B- %6ecution of decisions orders or awards) /7a: The Secretar$ of )abor
an *(plo$(ent or an$ Regional Director& the .o((ission or an$ )abor Arbiter& or
(e3arbiter or vol#ntar$ arbitrator (a$& &otu $ro$io or on &otion of any interested
$arty& iss#e a ;rit of e?ec#tion on a F#g(ent ;ithin five 7D: $ears fro( the ate it
beco(es final an e?ec#tor$ R> 7e(phasis s#pplie:
8The secon paragraph of Section 1& R#le VIII of the Ne; R#les of Aroce#re of
the N)R. also provies5
QThe )abor Arbiter& AO*A A(inistrator& or the Regional Director& or his #l$ a#thori@e hearing
officer of origin shall& &otu $ro$io or on &otion of any interested $arty& iss#e a ;rit of e?ec#tion
on a F#g(ent ;ithin five 7D: $ears fro( the ate it beco(es final an e?ec#tor$ R- No (otion
for e?ec#tion shall be entertaine nor a ;rit be iss#e #nless the )abor Arbiter is in possession
of the recors of the case ;hich shall incl#e an entr$ of F#g(ent-> 7e(phasis s#pplie:
??? ???
???
8In the absence the( of an orer for the iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion on the
reinstate(ent aspect of the ecision of the )abor Arbiter& the petitioner ;as #ner
no legal obligation to a(it back to ;ork the private responent #ner the ter(s
an conitions prevailing prior to her is(issal or& at the petitioner>s option& to
(erel$ reinstate her in the pa$roll- An option is a right of election to e?ercise a
privilege& an the option in Article !!% of the )abor .oe is e?cl#sivel$ grante to
the e(plo$er- The event that gives rise for its e?ercise is not the reinstate(ent
ecree of a )abor Arbiter& b#t the ;rit for its e?ec#tion co((aning the e(plo$er to
reinstate the e(plo$ee& ;hile the final act ;hich co(pels the e(plo$er to e?ercise
the option is the service #pon it of the ;rit of e?ec#tion ;hen& instea of a(itting
the e(plo$ee back to his ;ork& the e(plo$er chooses to reinstate the e(plo$ee in
the pa$roll onl$- If the e(plo$er oes not e?ercise this option& it (#st forth;ith
a(it the e(plo$ee back to ;ork& other;ise it (a$ be p#nishe for conte(pt-9
[!']
A closer e?a(ination& ho;ever& sho;s that the necessit$ for a ;rit of e?ec#tion #ner Article
!!B applies onl$ to final an e?ec#tor$ ecisions ;hich are not ;ithin the coverage of Article
!!%- 4or co(parison& ;e <#ote the (aterial portions of the s#bFect articles5
8ART- !!%- Appeal- ? ? ?
8In an$ event& the ecision of the )abor Arbiter reinstating a is(isse or separate
e(plo$ee& insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall
immediately be e%ecutory, even pendin& appeal- The e(plo$ee shall either be
a(itte back to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an conitions prevailing prior to his
is(issal or separation or& at the option of the e(plo$er& (erel$ reinstate in the
pa$roll- The postin& of a bond by the employer shall not stay the e%ecution
for reinstatement provided herein-
??? ???
???
8ART- !!B- *?ec#tion of ecisions& orers& or a;ars- 337a: The Secretar$ of )abor
an *(plo$(ent or an$ Regional Director& the .o((ission or an$ )abor Arbiter& or
(e3arbiter or vol#ntar$ arbitrator (a$& &otu $ro$io or on (otion of an$ intereste
part$& issue a writ of e%ecution on a 'ud&ment within five ()* years from the
date it becomes final and e%ecutory& re<#iring a sheriff or a #l$ ep#ti@e
officer to e?ec#te or enforce final ecicions& orers or a;ars of the Secretar$ of
)abor an *(plo$(ent or regional irector& the .o((ission& the arbiter or (e3
arbiter& or vol#ntar$ arbitrators- In an$ case& it shall be the #t$ of the responsible
officer to separatel$ f#rnish i((eiatel$ the co#nsels of recor an the parties ;ith
copies of sai ecisions& orers or a;ars- 4ail#re to co(pl$ ;ith the #t$
prescribe herein shall s#bFect s#ch responsible officer to appropriate
a(inistrative sanctions-I
Article !!B states that the nee for a ;rit of e?ec#tion applies onl$ within five ()* years from
the date a decision, an order or awards becomes final and e%ecutory. It cannot relate to
an a;ar or orer of reinstate(ent still to be appeale or pening appeal ;hich Article !!%
conte(plates- The provision of Article !!% is clear that an a;ar for reinstate(ent shall be
immediately e%ecutory even pendin& appeal an the postin& of a bond by the employer
shall not stay the e%ecution for reinstatement- The legislative content is <#ite obvio#s& i-e-&
to (ake an a;ar of reinstate(ent i((eiatel$ enforceable& even pening appeal- To re<#ire
the application for an iss#ance of a ;rit of e?ec#tion as prere<#isites for the e?ec#tion of a
reinstate(ent a;ar ;o#l certainl$ betra$ an r#n co#nter to the ver$ obFect an intent of
Article !!%& i- e-& the i((eiate e?ec#tion of a reinstate(ent orer- The reason is si(ple- An
application for a ;rit of e?ec#tion an its iss#ance co#l be ela$e for n#(ero#s reasons- A
(ere contin#ance or postpone(ent of a sche#le hearing& for instance& or an inaction on the
part of the )abor Arbiter or the N)R. co#l easil$ ela$ the iss#ance of the ;rit thereb$ setting
at na#ght the strict (anate an noble p#rpose envisione b$ Article !!%- In other ;ors& if
the re<#ire(ents of Article !!B ;ere to govern& as ;e so eclare in $aranaw& then the
e?ec#tor$ nat#re of a reinstate(ent orer or a;ar conte(plate b$ Article !!% ;ill be #n#l$
circ#(scribe an renere ineffect#al- In enacting the la;& the legislat#re is pres#(e to
have orainea vali an sensible la;& one ;hich operates no f#rther than (a$ be necessar$
to achieve its specific p#rpose- Stat#tes& as a r#le& are to be constr#e in the light of the
p#rpose to be achieve an the evil so#ght to be re(eie-
[%1]
An ;here stat#es are fairl$
s#sceptible of t;o or (ore constr#ction& that constr#ction sho#l be aopte ;hich ;ill (ost
ten to give effect to the (anifest intent of the la; (aker an pro(ote the obFect for ;hich the
stat#te ;as enacte& an a constr#ction sho#l be reFecte ;hich ;o#l ten to rener
abortive other provisions of the stat#te an to efeat the obFect ;hich the legislator so#ght to
attain b$ its enact(ent-
[%1]
In intro#cing a ne; r#le on the reinstate(ent aspect of a labor
ecision #ner R-A- No- G21D& .ongress sho#l not be consiere to be in#lging in (ere
se(antic e?ercise- On appeal& ho;ever& the appellate trib#nal concerne (a$ enFoin or
s#spen the reinstate(ent orer in the e?ercise of its so#n iscretion-
4#rther(ore& the r#le is that all o#bts in the interpretation an i(ple(entation of labor
la;s sho#l be resolve in favor of labor- In r#ling that an orer or a;ar for reinstate(ent
oes not re<#ire a ;rit of e?ec#tion the .o#rt is si(pl$ ahering an giving (eaning to this
r#le- Henceforth& ;e r#le that an a;ar or orer for reinstate(ent is self3e?ec#tor$- After
receipt of the ecision or resol#tion orering the e(plo$eeMs reinstate(ent& the e(plo$er has
the right to choose ;hether to re3a(it the e(plo$ee to ;ork #ner the sa(e ter(s an
conitions prevailing prior to his is(issal or to reinstate the e(plo$ee in the pa$roll- In either
instance& the e(plo$er has to infor( the e(plo$ee of his choice- The notification is base on
practical consierations for ;itho#t notice& the e(plo$ee has no ;a$ of kno;ing if he has to
report for ;ork or not-
,$ERE'ORE& the petition is D*NI*D an the ecision of the )abor Arbiter is hereb$
R*INSTAT*D-
.osts against petitioner-
SO OR"ERE".
G.R. No. 106915 A3=30. E1, 199E
&AR"INE "AVIES, INC., petitioner&
vs-
NA#IONA ABOR REA#IONS COMMISSION, 'OUR#$ "IVISION, CEBU CI#!, a)*
SAVA"OR SAU#IN,responents-
=ilado =agad A =ilado (aw <ffice for $etitioner)
Ro&eo !) %suerte for $rivate res$ondent)

VI#UG, J.+
The instant petition for certiorari seeks the reversal of the resol#tion of responent National
)abor Relations .o((ission& ate !! "#l$ 1''!& ;hich eclare private responent Salvaor
Sal#tin as not having abanone his ;ork b$ his allege fail#re to report for ;ork #ring the
penenc$ of the petitionerMs appeal before the responent .o((ission-
Responent Salvaor Sal#tin 7ISal#tinI: ;as e(plo$e b$ petitioner "arine Davies& Inc-
7I"DII:& on 1D "#l$ 1'6D& as a e(onstratorKagrono(ist to provie services relating to& an to
give avice on& the pro(otion an #se of "DIMs pesticies an other pro#cts-
The controvers$ that spa;ne t;o 7!: special .ivil actions for certiorari 7this instance incl#e:
;ith this .o#rt& began ;hen responent Sal#tin file a co(plaint against petitioner "DI for
illegal is(issal& ;ith pra$er for reinstate(ent an back;ages or& in the alternative& separation
pa$ pl#s ;age ifferential& service incentive leave pa$& thirteenth 71%th: (onth pa$& holia$
pa$& (oral an e?e(plar$ a(ages& an attorne$Ms fees- The co(plaint ;as ecie b$ the
)abor Arbiter in favor of responent Sal#tin in a ecision& ate 16 A#g#st 1''1& the ecretal
portion of ;hich reas5
HH*R*4OR*& AR*0IS*S .ONSID*R*D& responent "arine Davies&
Inc-K"arine Agche( is hereb$ orere to reinstate co(plaint to his for(er
position& ;itho#t loss of seniorit$ an other rights& an ;ith back;ages& in
a(o#nt of 4I4TO SIN THO+SAND S*V*N H+NDR*D A*SOS
7ADG&211-11:& ;itho#t e#ction an <#alification-
Responent is f#rther orere to pa$ co(plaint the follo;ing5
a-: 1%th (onth pa$ A 6&111-11
b-: Holia$ pa$ 1%&11D-6B
c-: Service Incentive pa$ 1&DD2-G1
-: 0oral Da(ages !1&111-11
e-: *?e(plar$ Da(ages 11&111-11
f-: Attorne$Ms fees& ;hich is ten percent 711=: of the total
a;are a(o#nt-
SO ORD*R*D-
"DI appeale the case to the National )abor Relations .o((ission 7N)R.:& an it poste a
s#perseeas bon to ans;er for the (onetar$ a;ars- It also reinstate Sal#tin& Ion pa$roll
onl$I& beginning !G A#g#st 1''1&
1
in co(pliance ;ith the ;rit of e?ec#tion iss#e b$ the )abor
Arbiter p#rs#ant to Article !!%& paragraph %& of the )abor .oe- In a ecision& ate 12
October 1''1& N)R. is(isse "DIMs appeal for lack of (erit b#t (oifie the ecision b$
eli(inating the a;ars given for holia$ pa$& service incentive leave pa$& (oral an e?e(plar$
a(ages-
8
A (otion for reconsieration ;as file ;hich ;as enie in N)R.Ms resol#tion of 1%
"an#ar$ 1''!-
E
On 1B 4ebr#ar$ 1''!& "DI file its first petition for certiorari ;ith this .o#rt& ockete as J-R-
No- 11%2!1& assailing the 12 October 1''1 ecision an the resol#tion of 1% "an#ar$ 1''! of
responent .o((ission- In o#r resol#tion& ate !G 4ebr#ar$ 1''!& the petition ;as is(isse
for fail#re to co(pl$ ;ith this .o#rtMs .irc#lar No- !63'1 on for#(3shopping- Its s#bse<#ent
(otion for reconsieration ;as itself enie on !1 0a$ 1''!- The resol#tion of !G 4ebr#ar$
1''! beca(e final an e?ec#tor$ on 1' "#ne 1''!& an an entr$ of F#g(ent ;as accoringl$
(ae on !1 A#g#st 1''!-
At the ti(e ;hen the above narrate events ;ere still #nfoling& so(e (aterial facts occ#re
beginning ;ith "DIMs appeal to the N)R. on the 16 A#g#st 1''1 ecision of the )abor Arbiter-
Shortl$ after the reinstate(ent of Sal#tin Ion pa$roll onl$I& "DI sent a letter& ate !1
Septe(ber 1''1& to Sal#tin irecting hi( to report for ;ork to their ,acolo ,ranch 0anager-
Sal#tin& as irecte reporte on the !Bth of Septe(ber 1''1 at aro#n '5!1 a-(- He i not
sta$ long& ho;ever& since after fifteen (in#tes or so& he left an ;as reporte not to have
thereafter ret#rne for ;ork- "DI forth;ith stoppe f#rther pa$(ent of salar$ to Sal#tin-
On 12 October 1''1& "DI file a I0anisfestation an 0otionI ;ith the responent .o((ission
stating& inter alia& that5
Sal#tin be consiere as having abanone his ;ork consiering his
contin#o#s absence of (ore than three 7%: ;eeks since he ;as re<#ire to
report for ;ork - - - an that an$ a;ar for reinstate(ent to his for(er
position& ;itho#t loss of seniorit$ an other rights& in the ArbiterMs ecision
s#bFect of this appeal be consiere an hel as ;aive or lost-
5
Sal#tin oppose the (otion& clai(ing that he ;as force to leave in haste beca#se he ;as
then s#ffering fro( a serio#s ail(ent- He s#b(itte a (eical certificate to s#pport his clai(-
5
On 1% "an#ar$ 1''!& responent .o((ission enie "DIMs I0anifestation S 0otionI stating&
a(ong other things& that5
As to the iss#e of ;hether the co(plaint3appellee Salvaor Sal#tin is g#ilt$
of ;ork abanon(ent& this is a ne; an fact#al (atter ;hich has to be
eter(ine an resolve in appropriate proceeings before the Arbitration
,ranch& (ore especiall$ in the present case& ;here the charge of
abanon(ent is serio#sl$ controverte-
Arescining fro( its receipt of an infor(ation that Sal#tin ;as e(plo$e else;here& "DI file
an e6 $arte (otion& ate 1G "#ne 1''!& to set for hearing the aforestate I0anifestation an
0otion-I
6
Sal#tin& on his part& also file a (otion pra$ing that "DI be orere to release his
;ithhel salar$&
F
clai(ing that he ha reporte for ;ork ;hen he recovere fro( his ail(ent on
11 Dece(ber 1''1-
8
On !! "#l$ 1''!& responent .o((ission iss#e its assaile resol#tion stating& viz5
HH*R*4OR*& Are(ises consiere& the responentMs pra$er to eclare or
consier the co(plainant to have abanone his Fob for his allege fail#re to
report back to ;ork #ring the penenc$ of the appeal in this case is hereb$
enie for lack of (erit-
The co(plainantMs (otion for release of his salar$ since !B Septe(ber 1''1&
#ntil he for(all$ seeks for the enforce(ent of the ecision is like;ise enie-
SO ORD*R*D-
Hhen the (otion for reconsieration ;as like;ise enie& "DI instit#te on 16 Septe(ber
1''! the present petition for certiorari-
D#ring the penenc$ of this petition& "DI file an I#rgent (otion for the iss#ance of ;rit of
preli(inar$ inF#nction anKor restraining orerI to prevent the responent .o((ission fro(
enforcing its resol#tion of !! "#l$ 1''! an !D A#g#st 1''! insofar as it orere the
reinstate(ent of Sal#tin- In its resol#tion& ate % 0arch 1''%& this .o#rt resolve to iss#e a
te(porar$ restraining orer-
Aetitioner raises this sole assign(ent of error& to ;it5
TH* R*SAOND*NT .O00ISSION A.T*D HITH JRAV* A,+S* O4
DIS.R*TION IN D*NOINJ A*TITION*RMS .ONT*NTIONKS+,0ISSION
THAT ARIVAT* R*SAOND*NT SA)+TIN SHO+)D ,* .ONSID*R*D AS
HAVINJ A,ANDON*D HIS HORT HH*N H* 4AI)*D TO R*AORT 4OR
HORT A*NDINJ TH* A*TITION*R3*0A)OO*RMS AAA*A) 4RO0 TH*
AR,IT*RMS D*.ISION JRANTINJ R*INSTAT*0*NT& A)THO+JH AT
THAT TI0* H* HAS ON R*INSTAT*0*NT ON AAORO)) U THIS
NOTHITHSTANDINJ A*TITION*RMS SHOHINJ THAT S+.H 4AI)+R*
TO R*AORT HAS ,*.A+S* R*SAOND*NT3*0A)OO** HAS TH*N
HORTINJ A)SO HITH ANOTH*R .O0AANO& H*N.* H* HAS
R*.*IVINJ SA)ARI*S 4RO0 ,OTH-
In the s#bse<#ent pages of its petition& "DI paraphrase the assigne iss#e in this ;ise5 Is
Sal#tin& ;ho ;as then on pa$roll reinstate(ent since !G A#g#st 1''1& not g#ilt$ of
abanon(ent ;hen his fail#re to report for ;ork ;as beca#se he ;as also ;orking for another
entit$ fro( 11 Septe(ber 1''1 to %1 Dece(ber 1''1L .orrelativel$& i responent
.o((ission not gravel$ ab#se its iscretion ;hen it i not take into consieration s#ch other
e(plo$(entL
O#r ans;er is in the negative-
The recors sho; that at the ti(e "DI file its 0anifestation an 0otion& ate 12 October
1''1& the sole basis of its pra$er for a eclaration that Sal#tin abanone his ;ork ;as his
allege #na#thori@e absences fro( the ate he ;as notifie to report for ;ork-
11
A shift to a
ne; foc#s took place ;hen& on %1 "an#ar$ 1''!& "DI& at its re<#est& receive a letter3
certification iss#e b$ the Officer3in3.harge of TingMs *nterprises of Iloilo .it$ that Sal#tin ;as
e(plo$e b$ 0onsato Ahilippines& Inc-& fro( 11 Septe(ber to %1 Dece(ber 1''1& as
Aggressive .rop Technician& for ;hich he ;as pai AD&1BG-11 per (onth-
18
Th#s& this ;as the
reason given b$ "DI in its e6 $arte (otion& ate 1G "#ne 1''!& to set for hearing the
0anifestation an 0otion of 12 October 1''1- N)R. enie the sai e6 $arte (otion in the
no; assaile resol#tion of !! "#l$ 1''!-
Hhen "DI file its first petition for certiorari 7in J-R- No- 11%2!1: ;ith this .o#rt on 1B 4ebr#ar$
1''!& assailing the 12 October 1''1 ecision of N)R.& it also raise& as an ae arg#(ent
on the allege abanon(ent of ;ork b$ Sal#tin& the fact that he ;as gainf#ll$ e(plo$e
else;here-
1E
.onsiering that this (atter ;as th#s alrea$ taken #p b$ the petitioner in its first
petition for certiorari& ;hich this .o#rt is(isse ;ith finalit$& the petitioner sho#l reall$ no;
be barre fro( invoking ane; that iss#e in this present 7secon: petition-
,e that as it (a$& the sa(e fate of is(issal is still inevitable- Altho#gh this .o#rt is not a trier
of facts& it (a$ still ;ae thro#gh the recors of a case if onl$ to prevent an$ possible
(isgiving in its #lti(ate isposition-
15
The petitionerMs evience to establish Sal#tinMs s#ppose
abanon(ent of ;ork is the certification of e(plo$(ent iss#e b$ TingMs *nterprises at the
re<#est of herein petitioner to the effect that Sal#tin ha inee been e(plo$e b$ 0onsato
Ahilippines& Inc-& #ring the perio fro( 11 Septe(ber to %1 Dece(ber 1''1- Is this eno#ghL
Hhat ;e have heretofore sai is this U
4or abanon(ent to constit#te a vali ca#se for ter(ination of e(plo$(ent&
there (#st be a eliberate #nF#stifie ref#sal of the e(plo$ee to res#(e his
e(plo$(ent- This ref#sal (#st be clearl$ sho;n- 0ere absence is not
s#fficientE it (#st be acco(panie b$ overt acts pointing to the fact that the
e(plo$ee si(pl$ oes not ;ant to ;ork an$(ore-
15
Abanon(ent of position is a (atter of intention e?presse in clearl$ certain an #ne<#ivocal
acts- In this instance& ho;ever& certain #ncontroverte facts sho; F#st e?actl$ the opposite-
Hence& Sal#tin i report& as irecte& on !B Septe(ber 1''1& b#t that he co#l not sta$ long
beca#se he ;as ailing at that ti(eE he& altho#gh perhaps belatel$ (ae& i seek (eical
cons#ltation on 2 Nove(ber 1''1& at the .ora@on )ocsin 0ontelibano 0e(orial Regional
Hospital& for Ipeptic #lcerIE an on 11 Dece(ber 1''1& he i& in fact& (anifest his esire to
ass#(e his ;ork ;ith the petitioner-
This .o#rtMs resol#tion of !G 4ebr#ar$ 1''!& en$ing the petition in J-R- No- 11%2!1& beca(e
final an e?ec#tor$ on 1' "#ne 1''!- Responent Sal#tinMs interi( e(plo$(ent& stresse b$
the petitioner& i not stain the pict#re at all- Here& ;e secon the ;ell3consiere vie; of
N)R.& th#s U
The orer of i((eiate reinstate(ent pening appeal& in cases of illegal
is(issal is an ancillar$ relief #ner R-A- G21D grante to a is(isse
e(plo$ee to c#shion hi( an his fa(il$ against the i(pact of econo(ic
islocation or abr#pt loss of earnings- If the e(plo$ee chooses not to report
for ;ork pening resol#tion of the case appeal& he foregoes s#ch a
te(porar$ relief an is not pai of his salar$- The final eter(ination of the
rights an obligations respectivel$ of the parties is the #lti(ate an final
resol#tion of this .o((ission-
HH*R*4OR*& the petition is hereb$ DIS0ISS*D- The <#estione resol#tions of the National
)abor Relations .o((ission are A44IR0*D& an the te(porar$ restraining orer iss#e b$
this .o#rt is hereb$ )I4T*D-
SO ORD*R*D-