02 Archilles V NLRC (Tiglao)

Archilles Manufacturing Corporation AUTHOR: TIGLAO
v. NLRC Q: Why are the respondents entitled to 13th month pay?

[G.R. No. 107225 | 02 June 1995] A: Even if you worked even just for a month during one calendar year, you are
TOPIC: 13th Month Pay | PONENTE: J. entitled to 13th month pay.
Bellosillo
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Although the reinstatement aspect of the decision is immediately executory, it does not follow that it is self executory. There
must be a writ of execution issued in order to allow the employer to exercise his option to merely reinstate the employee in the
payroll under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
FACTS:
Private respondents were employed by Archilles to work in its steel factory. They receive a daily wage of Php 96.00.
Within the steel factory, there is a bunkhouse where employees, such as responents, may rest.
In 1988, a mauling incident occurred involving a relative of an employee. This resulted to Archilles ordering its employees
to desist from bringing their relatives into the bunkhouse. Respondents ignored this directive.
In May 1990, Archilles ordered the respondents to remove their families from the bunkhouse. They complied; however,
respondents failed to report this to the management, as required.
Instead, they chose to absent themselves from work. Hence, on 18 May 1990, they were terminated in violation of the
bunkhouse order.
Respondents filed for illegal dismissal against Archilles.
LA: In favor of respondents. Ordered their reinstatement and payment of backwages and 13 th month pay for 1990.
NLRC: Respondents filed a motion for execution pending appeal. Petitioners opposed.
NLRC ruled in favor of Archilles, stating that the dismissal was valid because of the violation of the bunkhouse order.
IMPORTANT: While the NLRC ruled in favor of Archilles, the latter filed a motion for partial reconsideration insofar as this
part of the decision is concerned
NLRC ordered ARCHILLES to pay private respondents their "withheld" salaries from 19 September 1991 when it
filed its opposition to the motion for issuance of a writ of execution until the promulgation of the NLRC Decision (11
August 1992) on the ground that the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter was immediately executory, even
pending appeal. And since ARCHILLES in its opposition alleged that actual reinstatement was no longer possible as
it would affect the peace and order situation in the steel factory, clearly, ARCHILLES had opted for payroll
reinstatement of private respondents. NLRC also ordered ARCHILLES to pay their proportionate 13th month pay for
1990 and P12,351.30 representing 10% of the total judgment award of P123,513.00 as attorney's fees
Archilles now prays for the Court to partially annul the decision insofar as the above quoted portion is concerned.
ISSUE(S):
1. W/N a writ of execution is necessary despite pending appeal.
2. W/N the award of 13th month pay was proper.
HELD: In both cases, the ruling is on the affirmative.
RATIO:
Although the reinstatement aspect of the decision is immediately executory, it does not follow that it is self-executory. There
must be a writ of execution which may be issued motu proprio or on motion of an interested party. (Maranaw Hotel Resort
Corporation v. NLRC)
It is important to note that the motions of private respondents for the issuance of a writ of execution were not acted upon by
NLRC. It was not shown that respondent exerted efforts to have their motions resolved. They are deemed to have abandoned
their motions for execution pending appeal. They cannot now ask that the writ of execution be issued since their dismissal was
found to be for cause.
On the second issue, which refers to the propriety of the award of a 13th month pay, paragraph 6 of the Revised Guidelines on
the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law (P. D. 851) provides that "(a)n employee who has resigned or whose services
were terminated at any time before the payment of the 13th month pay is entitled to this monetary benefit in proportion to the
length of time he worked during the year, reckoned from the time he started working during the calendar year up to the time of
his resignation or termination from the
service . . . The payment of the 13th month pay may be demanded by the employee upon the cessation of employer-employee
relationship. This is consistent with the principle of equity that as the employer can require the employee to clear himself of all
liabilities and property accountability, so can the employee demand the payment of all benefits due him upon the termination of
the relationship."
Furthermore, Sec. 4 of the original Implementing Rules of P.D. 851 mandates employers to pay their employees a 13th month
pay not later than the 24th of December every year provided that they have worked for at least one (1) month during a calendar
year. In effect, this statutory benefit is automatically vested in the employee who has at least worked for one month during the
calendar year. As correctly stated by the Solicitor General, such benefit may not be lost or forfeited even in the event of the
employee's subsequent dismissal for cause without violating his property rights.
RELEVANT PROVISION:
Article 223(3), Labor Code:
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement
aspect is concerned, shall be immediately 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 the bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided
herein.

02 Archilles V NLRC (Tiglao)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Archilles V NLRC (Tiglao)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Archilles V NLRC (Tiglao)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archilles Manufacturing Corporation AUTHOR: TIGLAO

v. NLRC Q: Why are the respondents entitled to 13th month pay?

HELD: In both cases, the ruling is on the affirmative.

You might also like