Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc. v. Macam

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192169. June 13, 2013.]

EVER ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING, INC., AND/OR VICENTE C. GO AND MARISA U. RAZA, petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO R. MACAM IN HIS CAPACITY AS LABOR ARBITER, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION (NAMAWU) AND EDWARD TORRECAMPO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 13, 2013 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 192169 — (Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc., and/or Vicente C. Go and Marisa U. Raza v. Hon. Antonio R. Macam in his capacity as Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission, National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU) and Edward Torrecampo). — The Court DENIES the Petition for Review dated 24 June 2010 for lack of merit.

After finding that petitioner-employer Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc. (EEMI) illegally dismissed respondent-employee Torrecampo, the Labor Arbiter (LA) issued Orders, 1 which directed petitioner to immediately reinstate him pending appeal of the illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and to pay him his accrued wages amounting to P60,037.85. IDETCA

In contesting these directives before the LA, the Court of Appeals (CA), and again before this Court, EEMI insists that reinstatement pending appeal is not immediately executory, unless petitioner has (1) elected either physical or payroll reinstatement and (2) completed the appeal of the judgment finding illegal dismissal.

Petitioner is gravely mistaken. The third paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code explicitly directs employers to reinstate an illegally dismissed employee immediately. The provision reads as follows:

Art. 223.Appeal. —

xxx xxx xxx

In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein.

To implement a reinstatement order, the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides thus:

Section 6.Execution of Reinstatement Pending Appeal. — In case the decision includes an order of reinstatement, and the employer disobeys the directive under the second paragraph of Section 14 of Rule V or refuses to reinstate the dismissed employee, the Labor Arbiter shall immediately issue writ of execution, even pending appeal, directing the employer to immediately reinstate the dismissed employee either physically or in the payroll, and to pay the accrued salaries as a consequence of such reinstatement at the rate specified in the decision. 2

Section 9.Effect of Perfection of Appeal on Execution. — The perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on appeal, except execution for reinstatement pending appeal. 3 cADEIa

The Sheriff shall serve the writ of execution upon the employer or any other person required by law to obey the same. If he disobeys the writ, such employer or person may be cited for contempt in accordance with Rule IX.

In several cases, we have already emphasized that a reinstatement pending appeal necessitates its immediate execution during the pendency of the appeal, and that any attempt on the part of the employer to evade or delay the execution should not be countenanced. 4 Thus, as worded in our labor statutes cited above, an appeal cannot forestall a reinstatement order.

Moreover, although the right to choose between physical and payroll reinstatement does exist, the CA correctly appreciated that our labor laws do not intend to allow the employee to be left at the mercy of the employer, who can cause an unreasonable delay in the implementation of the reinstatement order. The immediacy of reinstatement is unqualified by the employer's prerogative to choose the form of reinstatement, because the law considers the ill effects brought about by an unwarranted separation of employees from their livelihood. 5 Thus, without any sound legal basis to prevent reinstatement pending appeal, we deny EEMI's Rule 45 Petition and sustain the rulings of the courts a quo.

Owing to the executory nature of the relief of reinstatement, the employer shall be liable for accrued wages whenever it reneges on its duty to effect physical or payroll reinstatement. 6 Similarly, since EEMI avoided the implementation of any form of reinstatement necessary to cushion respondent Torrecampo and his family against the impact of abrupt loss of earnings, 7 this Court affirms the payment of his accrued wages.

SO ORDERED." cDSaEH

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Both the Order dated 27 September 2005 resolving the Motion for Issuance of a Partial Writ of Execution and Order dated 17 January 2006 resolving the Motion for Reconsideration were penned by Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam in NLRC-NCR-00-09-10078-04; id. at 181-182, 200.

2.THE 2005 REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Rule XI; THE 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule XI, Sec. 9.

3.THE 2005 REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Rule XI; THE 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule XI, Sec. 3.

4.Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 164856, 20 January 2009, 576 SCRA 479, 490-491, citing Kimberly Clark (Phils.), Inc. v. Facundo, G.R. No. 144885, 26 July 2006 (Unsigned Resolution), Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 449 Phil. 437 (2003), Composite Enterprises, Inc. v. Caparoso, 556 Phil. 301 (2007). and Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora, 529 Phil. 718 (2006).

5.See Aris (Phil.), Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 90501, 5 August 1991, 200 SCRA 246, which affirmed the constitutionality of Article 223 of the Labor Code.

6.International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 360 Phil. 527, 535 (1998).

7.Jardine Davies, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106915, 31 August 1993, 225 SCRA 757, 763.