JUANITO A. GARCIA and ALBERTO J.
DUMAGO, Petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES
Facts:
Petitioners were employees of PAL who were caught in the act using Methamphetamine
and resulted to their dismissal. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal at LA.
LA ruled in favor of the petitioner, and orders PAL for their reinstatement.
And subsequently issued an order of garnishment.
LA ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered reinstatement and subsequently issued an
order of ganishment
Respondent thereupon moved to quash the Writ and to lift the Notice while petitioners
moved to release the garnished amount.
NLRC affirmed the validity of the Writ and the Notice issued by the Labor Arbiter but
suspended and referred the action to the Rehabilitation Receiver for appropriate action.
Issue :
Whether petitioners may collect their wages during the period between the Labor
Arbiter’s order of reinstatement pending appeal
Held : Yes, no refund if pending appeal an adverse judgment is rendered against the
labor.
[E]ven if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is
obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the
dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court.
On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and
such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to
reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually
rendered services during the period.12 (Emphasis in the original; italics and underscoring
supplied)
In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the Labor
Arbiter is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is
immediately executory. Unless there is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the Labor
Arbiter to implement the order of reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to
comply therewith.
After the labor arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee
may be barred from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in
enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of the
employer.
The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual delay or the fact that the order of
reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and (2) the delay
must not be due to the employer’s unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the
employer’s unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to pay the salaries
notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
In the case at bar, petitioners exerted efforts30 to execute the Labor Arbiter’s order of
reinstatement until they were able to secure a writ of execution, albeit issued on October
5, 2000 after the reversal by the NLRC of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Technically, there
was still actual delay which brings to the question of whether the delay was due to
respondent’s unjustified act or omission.
Then, by and pursuant to the same power (police power), the State may authorize an
immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or
separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although temporarily since
the appeal may be decided in favor of the appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the
survival or even the life of the dismissed or separated employee and his family.
The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law
doctrine of unjust enrichment espoused by Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. in his Separate
Opinion. The constitutional and statutory precepts portray the otherwise "unjust" situation
as a condition affording full protection to labor.
Even outside the theoretical trappings of the discussion and into the mundane realities of
human experience, the "refund doctrine" easily demonstrates how a favorable decision
by the Labor Arbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. The employee,
to make both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during
the pendency of the appeal, only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final
unfavorable decision. It is mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of
insolvency
