Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Pfizer V Geraldine Velasco

    Uploaded by

    Rejmali Good
    The respondent was dismissed from her job at Pfizer and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ordered her reinstatement and back wages. The Court of Appeals found the dismissal valid but still ordered payment of wages until its decision. The Supreme Court had to determine if wages were properly awarded. It held that even if reinstatement is later reversed, the employer must still pay wages during the appeal period. Reinstatement is immediately effective without need for a writ of execution. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals decisions were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pfizer V Geraldine Velasco

    Uploaded by

    Rejmali Good
    96 views2 pages
    The respondent was dismissed from her job at Pfizer and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ordered her reinstatement and back wages. The Court of Appeals found the dismissal valid but still ordered payment of wages until its decision. The Supreme Court had to determine if wages were properly awarded. It held that even if reinstatement is later reversed, the employer must still pay wages during the appeal period. Reinstatement is immediately effective without need for a writ of execution. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals decisions were affirmed.

    Original Title

    Pfizer v Geraldine Velasco(1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent was dismissed from her job at Pfizer and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ordered her reinstatement and back wages. The Court of Appeals found the dismissal valid but still ordered payment of wages until its decision. The Supreme Court had to determine if wages were properly awarded. It held that even if reinstatement is later reversed, the employer must still pay wages during the appeal period. Reinstatement is immediately effective without need for a writ of execution. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals decisions were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views2 pages

    Pfizer V Geraldine Velasco

    Uploaded by

    Rejmali Good
    The respondent was dismissed from her job at Pfizer and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ordered her reinstatement and back wages. The Court of Appeals found the dismissal valid but still ordered payment of wages until its decision. The Supreme Court had to determine if wages were properly awarded. It held that even if reinstatement is later reversed, the employer must still pay wages during the appeal period. Reinstatement is immediately effective without need for a writ of execution. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals decisions were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PFIZER, INC.

    AND/OR REY GERARDO BACARRO, AND/OR FERDINAND CORTES, AND/OR


    ALFRED MAGALLON, AND/OR ARISTOTLE ARCE, Petitioners, vs. GERALDINE VELASCO,
    Respondent.
    (G.R. No. 177467 March 9, 2011)

    Facts of the Case:

    The private respondent Professional Health Care Provider filed a complaint against Pfizer for
    illegal dismissal on not giving credence and for denying all allegations against her regarding
    illegal transactions upheld with different people recorded in show cause orders submitted in
    several dates. The management decided later to terminate her from her job in its
    “Management Decision”. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both affirmed in the decision for
    reinstatement and backwages. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals set aside the ruling and
    upheld that the dismissal was valid but ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent her
    wages..

    Issues:

    Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a serious but reversible error when it ordered
    Pfizer to pay Velasco wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision ordering her
    reinstatement until November 23, 2005, when the Court of Appeals rendered its decision
    declaring Velasco’s dismissal valid?

    Held:

    It is established in jurisprudence that reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition


    from which one had been removed or separated. The person reinstated assumes the position
    he had occupied prior to his dismissal. Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position
    from which one had been removed still exists, or that there is an unfilled position which is
    substantially equivalent or of similar nature as the one previously occupied by the employee.

    The Court reaffirms the prevailing principle that even 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.

    In sum, the Court reiterates the principle that reinstatement pending appeal necessitates that
    it must be immediately self-executory without need for a writ of execution during the
    pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble purpose, and any attempt on the part of
    the employer to evade or delay its execution should not be allowed.

    Decision:
    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Resolution dated October 23, 2006 as well
    as the Resolution dated April 10, 2007 both issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
    88987 are hereby AFFIRMED.

    You might also like