G.R. No. 75906 May 18, 1993
AMERICAN EXPRESS PHILIPPINES LOCAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ELLA BLANCO, ELIZABETH ZINGALAOA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR, AMERICAN EXPRESS INT’L., INC. and PCI TRAVEL CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Ella Blanco and Elizabeth Zingalaoa were employees of American Express International, Inc. (AMEXCO) assigned at the Clark Air Force Base Tour Extension Office, Travel Division. On May 12, 1981, they were advised via separate letters from AMEXCO’s Personnel Manager, Cresencio Datu, of the termination of their employment due to the closure of the Tour Extension Office. The letters stated that dismissal would be effective upon approval of a clearance application to be filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), but they could collect separation pay prior to such approval, in which event the application would be considered unopposed. Petitioners received their separation pay a week later and signed release and quitclaim papers. On May 28, 1981, AMEXCO filed a clearance application to terminate petitioners’ services. On August 5, 1981, the American Express Philippines Local Employees Association (AMEXPLEA) and petitioners filed a complaint against AMEXCO and Datu for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. On July 28, 1982, Regional Director Severo M. Pucan issued an Order denying AMEXCO’s clearance application, finding illegal dismissal, and directing reinstatement with full backwages. AMEXCO, alleging receipt of the Order on August 4, 1982, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration on August 18, 1982, which was granted. It filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on August 25, 1982. On December 29, 1982, petitioners filed a Motion to Implead PCI Travel Corporation (PCI) based on a “Sales and Purchase Agreement” where AMEXCO’s Travel Division was sold to PCI effective January 1, 1983. On January 26, 1983, Director Pucan treated AMEXCO’s motion for reconsideration as an appeal but directed issuance of a writ of execution due to AMEXCO’s failure to post a supersedeas bond. A Writ of Execution was issued on March 26, 1984. On April 11, 1984, AMEXCO filed a Motion to Lift the Writ of Execution and posted a supersedeas bond. Petitioners opposed, arguing the bond was filed late and the Order had become final. On August 12, 1986, public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Vicente Leogardo, Jr. issued the assailed Order setting aside the July 28, 1982 Order, granting clearance to terminate petitioners, and ordering payment of separation pay (one month salary per year of service) less amounts already received.

ISSUE

Whether public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor had jurisdiction to issue the Order of August 12, 1986, considering petitioners’ contention that the July 28, 1982 Order had become final and executory due to AMEXCO’s failure to file a timely appeal or motion for reconsideration and to post a supersedeas bond.

RULING

The petition is DISMISSED and public respondent’s Order is AFFIRMED. The Supreme Court upheld public respondent’s jurisdiction. It ruled that petitioners were estopped from questioning the timeliness of AMEXCO’s motion for reconsideration (treated as an appeal) and the late filing of the supersedeas bond because they did not raise these issues promptly and instead actively participated in the proceedings. The Court noted that petitioners only raised the absence of a supersedeas bond two years later, on May 11, 1984, and their Motion to Dismiss filed on November 23, 1984, after the writ was issued, had become irrelevant. On the merits, the Court agreed with public respondent that petitioners’ acceptance of separation pay without protest, under the circumstances where they were advised that collecting it would make the clearance application unopposed, and their signing of release and quitclaim papers, barred their claim for reinstatement. Clearance to terminate was properly granted, and petitioners were entitled to separation pay of one month salary for every year of service less amounts already received, based on the “Personnel Terms and Conditions of Employment” prevailing at their hiring in 1975, not the later 1980 Personnel Policy Manual, to avoid diminution of benefits. The issue of reinstatement and absorption by PCI as successor-in-interest was rendered moot by the grant of clearance.