G.R. No. 206985, February 28, 2024
JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM, PETITIONER, VS. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO AND RICARDO P. ISLA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Leni Z. Solidum filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents Smart Communications, Inc., Napoleon L. Nazareno, and Ricardo P. Isla. On July 3, 2006, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in Solidum’s favor, ordering his reinstatement and payment of backwages and benefits. Solidum received this decision on July 13, 2006. Respondents appealed to the NLRC. Pending appeal, the Labor Arbiter issued several alias writs of execution for Solidum’s accrued reinstatement wages from July 21, 2006, to October 20, 2006, and subsequently from August 15, 2007, to January 22, 2009. On January 26, 2009, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed Solidum’s complaint. Solidum filed a motion for reconsideration. While this motion was pending, Solidum filed an ex-parte motion for another alias writ of execution for accrued benefits from January 21, 2009, to April 20, 2009. On May 29, 2009, the NLRC denied Solidum’s motion for reconsideration, and its decision became final and executory on August 10, 2009. The Labor Arbiter denied Solidum’s ex-parte motion for an alias writ on July 29, 2009, reasoning that the NLRC’s reversal prevented further writs. Solidum appealed this order to the NLRC. On May 31, 2010, the NLRC partly granted Solidum’s appeal and ordered the issuance of an alias writ for accrued reinstatement wages from July 13, 2006, to May 29, 2009, less amounts already received. This NLRC decision became final on July 12, 2010. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter issued a 10th Alias Writ of Execution. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify this writ. The CA granted the petition, annulled the 10th Alias Writ, and ordered Solidum to refund the amounts he received under it. Solidum filed a Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the 10th Alias Writ of Execution and ordering petitioner Solidum to refund the amounts he received pursuant thereto.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that an order of reinstatement is immediately executory, and an employer must either reinstate the employee physically or in the payroll. The accrual of reinstatement wages is reckoned from the date the employer receives the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order until the date the decision reversing it becomes final. In this case, the finality of the NLRC’s decision reversing the illegal dismissal finding occurred on August 10, 2009, as indicated by the Entry of Judgment. Therefore, Solidum’s entitlement to reinstatement wages ceased on that date, not on May 29, 2009 (the date the NLRC denied his motion for reconsideration). The 10th Alias Writ, which covered periods beyond August 10, 2009, was issued without legal basis. Consequently, the CA correctly annulled it and ordered the refund of amounts corresponding to the period after the finality of the reversal. The principle of unjust enrichment applies, and Solidum must return the excess payments he received.