456 - Islriz v.

Capada, January 31, 2011

Facts: Respondents were drivers and helpers of Islriz Trading, a gravel and sand business.
December 21, 2001, LA ordered the reinstatement of respondents and the payment of full
backwages from date of dismissal to actual reinstatement. On December 7, 2002, NLRC ordered the
reinstatement of respondents without backwages or other monetary award. Despite the issuance
and subsequent finality of the NLRC Resolution, petitioner still refused to reinstate them.
LA computed the backwages from January 1, 2022 to January 30, 2004 or for a total of 24.97
months in the amount of P1,110,665.60.
Petitioner questioned this computation claiming that the NLRC’s ordered only the reinstatement of
respondent without backwages or other monetary award, only the execution of reinstatement sans
any backwages or monetary award should be enforced.
Issue: W/N respondents may collect their wages during the period between the Labor Arbiter's
order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC Resolution overturning that of the Labor
Arbiter.
Ruling:

 The Labor Arbiter's order of reinstatement is immediately executory and the employer has
to either re-admit them to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to
their dismissal, or to reinstate them in the payroll, and that failing to exercise the options in
the alternative, employer must pay the employee's salaries.
 Employees are entitled to their accrued salaries during the period between the Labor
Arbiter's order of reinstatement pending appeal and the resolution of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) overturning that of the Labor Arbiter. Otherwise stated, even
if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, the employer is still
obliged to reinstate and pay the wages of the employee during the period of appeal until
reversal by a higher court or tribunal.
 t then provided for the two-fold test in determining whether an employee is barred from
recovering his accrued wages, to wit: (1) there must be actual delay or 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. – this is the two-fold test
 The conclusion is that respondents have the right to collect their accrued salaries during the
period between the Labor Arbiter's Decision ordering their reinstatement pending appeal
and the NLRC Resolution overturning the same because petitioner's failure to reinstate
them either actually or through payroll was due to petitioner's unjustified refusal to effect
reinstatement.
 Respondents are entitled to their accrued salaries from the time petitioner received a copy
of the Decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring respondents' termination illegal and ordering
their reinstatement up to the date of the NLRC resolution overturning that of the Labor
Arbiter. Computation for the unpaid wages must be from commence from petitioner's date
of receipt of the Labor Arbiter's Decision ordering reinstatement up to the date of the NLRC
Resolution reversing the same. Remand to LA for the determination of the receipt of the
decision of LA by petitioner.
 457 - Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2009
Facts: An anonymous e-mail was sent to the General Manager of Amkor Technology Philippines
(respondent) detailing allegations of malfeasance on the part of its supervisory employees Lunesa
Lansangan and Rosita Cendana (petitioners) for "stealing company time."1 Respondent thus
investigated the matter, requiring petitioners to submit their written explanation. In handwritten
letters, petitioners admitted their wrongdoing. Respondent terminated petitioners for "extremely
serious offenses" as defined in its Code of Discipline, prompting petitioners to file a complaint for
illegal dismissal against it.
LA while affirming the finding that petitioners were guilty of misconduct and the like, ordered
respondent to reinstate petitioners without backwages as a measure of equitable and
compassionate relief. NLRC reversed the decision.
CA while affirming the finding that petitioners were guilty of misconduct and the like, ordered
respondent to "pay petitioners their corresponding backwages without qualification and deduction
for the period covering October 20, 2004 (date of the Arbiter's decision) up to June 30, 2005 (date
of the NLRC Decision).
Issue: W/N petitioners are entitled to backwages pending appeal on the LA’s decision ordering
their reinstatement. –
Ruling:

 Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a dismissed or separated
employee while the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal. It does not apply where
there is no finding of illegal dismissal, as in the present case.
 The Arbiter found petitioners' dismissal to be valid. The finding become final, petitioners
not having appealed it. Petitioners are not entitled to full backwages as their dismissal was
not found to be illegal. Agabon v. NLRC so states '' payment of backwages and other benefits
is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed.
458 - Palteng v. UCPB, February 27, 2009
Facts: Elizabeth D. Palteng was the Senior Assistant Manager/Branch Operations Officer of
respondent United Coconut Planters Bank in its Banaue Branch in Quezon City. Audit discovered
that Palteng committed several offenses under the Employee Discipline Code in connection with
Mercado's Past Due Domestic BP. Palteng was dismissed.
LA ruled that Palteng was illegally dismissed and ordered the payment of separation pay, full
backwages. NLRC affirmed the decision. However, it limited the award of backwages from the time
Palteng was illegally dismissed on October 25, 1996, until the promulgation of the LA's Decision on
December 6, 1999, as penalty for her offense. CA affirmed the finding that she was illegally
dismissed.
Issue: W/N award of backwages, if any, should be counted from the time petitioner was illegally
dismissed until the promulgation of the Labor Arbiter's Decision on December 6, 1999, or until the
finality of the decision. – separation pay only without backwages
Ruling:
  Reinstatement and payment of backwages are distinct and separate reliefs given to alleviate
the economic setback brought about by the employee's dismissal. The award of one does
not bar the other. Backwages may be awarded without reinstatement, and reinstatement
may be ordered without awarding backwages.
 In a number of cases, the Court, despite ordering reinstatement or payment of separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement, has not awarded backwages as penalty for the misconduct or
infraction committed by the employee.
 In the case at bar, petitioner admitted that she granted the BP accommodation against
Mercado's personal checks beyond and outside her authority. The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC
and the Court of Appeals all found her to have committed an "error of judgment,"17 "honest
mistake,"18 "honest mistake" vis-a-vis a "major offense."
 Since petitioner was not faultless in regard to the offenses imputed against her, we hold that
the award of separation pay only, without backwages, is proper.
459 - Alcantara & Sons v. CA, September 29, 2010
Facts: The Company and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that
bound them to hold no strike and no lockout in the course of its life. At some point the parties
began negotiating the economic provisions of their CBA but this ended in a deadlock, prompting the
Union to strike.
LA rendered a decision, declaring the Union's strike illegal for violating the CBA's no strike, no
lockout, provision. As a consequence, the Labor Arbiter held that the Union officers should be
deemed to have forfeited their employment. With respect to the striking Union members, finding
no proof that they actually committed illegal acts during the strike, the Labor Arbiter ordered their
reinstatement without backwages.
NLRC affirmed the decision of LA, except that it declared that the union members involved are
terminated for having committed prohibited and illegal acts. CA reversed NLRC’s decision and
affirmed that of LA.
Issue: W/N Union members are entitled to backwages pending appeal of Labor Arbiter's decision. –
pay the terminated Union members backwages for four (4) months and nine (9) days and
separation pays equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service to the company up to
the date of their termination
Ruling:

 Although the Labor Arbiter failed to act on the terminated Union members' motion for
reinstatement pending appeal, the Company had the duty under Article 223 to immediately
reinstate the affected employees even if it intended to appeal from the decision ordaining
such reinstatement. The Company's failure to do so makes it liable for accrued backwages
until the eventual reversal of the order of reinstatement by the NLRC on November 8, 1999,
a period of four months and nine days.
460 - Aboc v. Metrobank, December 13, 2010
Facts: Aboc, the Regional Operations Coordinator of Metrobank in Cebu City was dismissed. He was
charged that he had actively participated in the lending activities of his immediate supervisor, the
Branch Manager of Metrobank where he was assigned. He denied the allegation but admitted that
he did some acts for Chua in connection with his lending activity. He did so because he could not say
"no" to Chua because of the latter's influence and ascendancy over him and because of his "utang na
loob". Metrobank also disclosed that Aboc and his companions created another credit union, which
opened accounts with Metrobank under fictitious names. Metrobank was not informed of the
existence of this credit union. Upon discovering the action, Aboc was dismissed.
LA ruled that Aboc was illegally dismissed. NLRC reversed it but ordered Metrobank to pay Aboc,
reinstatement wages from July 12, 1999 to September 16, 1999 pending appeal of the LA’s decision.
CA affirmed the decision of NLRC.
Issue: W/N Aboc is entitled to backwages pending appeal. - Yes
Ruling:

 Aboc's participation in the lending and investment activities of CNRI and FFA was highly
irregular and clearly in conflict with Metrobank's business. The irregularity of his act was
evident from the fact that he deliberately failed to inform Metrobank about the existence of
CNRI and FFA. Though he expressed apprehension and was not pleased with the way Chua
was running the lending business, he never informed or, at least, sought advice from his
employer. Instead of doing so, he actively participated in the business of Chua which
competed against that of Metrobank. Moreover, Aboc knew about the subject credit union's
non-registration with the Central Bank or any proper government institution. Being an
experienced banker, he should have known that the lending activities of the subject credit
unions were questionable, if not, illegal, due to its non-registration. Again, Aboc chose not to
inform his employer about this and, instead, participated in the operations of the subject
credit unions.
 In the case at bench, it cannot be denied that Metrobank opted to reinstate Aboc in its
payroll. Since Metrobank chose payroll reinstatement for Aboc, the Court agrees with the CA
that he then became a reinstated regular employee. This means that he was restored to his
previous position as a regular employee without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
appurtenant thereto. His payroll reinstatement put him on equal footing with the other
regular Metrobank employees insofar as entitlement to the benefits given under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement is concerned. The fact that the decision of the LA was
reversed on appeal has no controlling significance. The rule is that even if the order of
reinstatement of the LA 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
final reversal by the higher court.