G.R. No. 110027 November 16, 1994
MARANAW HOTEL RESORT CORPORATION (CENTURY PARK SHERATON MANILA), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GINA G. CASTRO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Gina G. Castro was hired on a probationary basis for six months as a guest relations officer by petitioner on June 16, 1990. She was dismissed on November 10, 1990, for failure to meet the standards in her probationary contract. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. On December 23, 1991, the Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, declaring her dismissal illegal and ordering her immediate reinstatement with backwages. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC on February 7, 1992, within the reglementary period, and filed a surety bond on July 14, 1992. On February 17, 1992, private respondent filed a motion for execution of the reinstatement order, which was not acted upon. On March 25, 1993, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, holding there was no illegal dismissal but a failure to meet employment standards. However, the NLRC also ruled that, pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code, private respondent should be considered on payroll reinstatement from the date of her motion for execution (March 13, 1992) until the promulgation of the NLRC resolution, and ordered petitioner to pay her salaries for that period. Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payroll reinstatement of an employee and directing the employer to pay her salaries for a specific period, despite its resolution reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and declaring that there was no illegal dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and modified the NLRC resolution by deleting the order for petitioner to pay private respondent’s salaries for the period from March 13, 1992, to March 25, 1993. The Court held that while the reinstatement aspect of a Labor Arbiter’s decision is immediately executory under Article 223 of the Labor Code, it is not self-executory. A writ of execution must be issued, either motu proprio or upon motion. In this case, the private respondent’s motion for execution was never resolved, and no writ of execution was issued. Consequently, there was no occasion for the employer to exercise its option under Article 223 to either admit the employee back to work or reinstate her in the payroll. The NLRC’s order effectively arrogated the employer’s option unto itself. Furthermore, since the NLRC ultimately ruled that the dismissal was valid, the rationale for the payroll reinstatement order was untenable. The rest of the NLRC resolution, which dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, was allowed to stand.