G.R. No. 142937. July 25, 2006.
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MARITA A. ANGARA and BEATRIZ T. LA VICTORIA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Marita A. Angara and Beatriz La Victoria were Slot Machine Roving Token Attendants (SMRTAs) for the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) in Davao City. They were dismissed on June 28, 1997, on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) found their dismissal illegal, ordering their reinstatement. PAGCOR’s subsequent petition to the Court of Appeals was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the Supreme Court, in a Decision dated November 15, 2005, ultimately affirmed the CSC, ruling that loss of trust and confidence was inapplicable as respondents were not confidential employees.
Following the finality of the Supreme Court’s decision, respondents filed a Motion for Clarification. They contended that the Court’s decision inadvertently omitted the award of full backwages, allowances, and other benefits attendant to illegal dismissal under Article 279 of the Labor Code. They also prayed for an award of litigation expenses and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are entitled to an award of full backwages and other benefits despite not having appealed the CSC resolution which only ordered reinstatement, and whether they are entitled to attorney’s fees.

RULING

The motion is partly granted. Respondents are entitled to full backwages and benefits, but not to attorney’s fees. As a general rule, a party who does not appeal cannot obtain affirmative relief beyond the appealed decision. Here, respondents did not appeal the CSC resolution that solely ordered reinstatement and raised the monetary claims only in their Motion for Clarification. However, the Court relaxed this procedural rule to serve the overriding interests of justice and labor. Technicalities must yield when their rigid application results in a miscarriage of justice.
The legal logic is anchored on the substantive right conferred by Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended. An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement. These are twin but separate remedies intended to make the employee whole and give meaning to the constitutional right to security of tenure. Since the Court had already definitively ruled that the dismissal was illegal—as loss of trust and confidence cannot apply to non-confidential employees like SMRTAs—the grant of backwages is a necessary and ministerial consequence of that finding of illegality.
Conversely, the prayer for attorney’s fees is denied. Respondents are deemed to have waived this claim by failing to raise it in a separate appeal before the Court of Appeals. Seeking this affirmative relief only at this final stage via a motion for clarification is a procedural somersault that cannot be sanctioned. The case is remanded to the CSC for computation of the exact amount of backwages and benefits due.