G.R. No. 177026 January 30, 2009
Lunesa O. Lansangan and Rocita Cendaña, Petitioners, vs. Amkor Technology Philippines, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

An anonymous email was sent to the General Manager of Amkor Technology Philippines, Inc. (respondent) alleging that its supervisory employees, Lunesa Lansangan and Rosita Cendaña (petitioners), were “stealing company time.” Respondent investigated and required petitioners to submit written explanations, wherein they admitted their wrongdoing. Respondent then terminated petitioners for “extremely serious offenses” under its Code of Discipline. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found petitioners guilty of “[s]wiping another employees’ I.D. card or requesting another employee to swipe one’s I.D. card to gain personal advantage and/or in the interest of cheating,” an offense of dishonesty punishable as serious misconduct and fraud or breach of trust under Article 282 of the Labor Code, which is a valid cause for dismissal. However, the Arbiter ordered their reinstatement without backwages as equitable and compassionate relief, citing their prior unblemished records, show of remorse, harshness of the penalty, and respondent’s defective attendance monitoring system. Respondent appealed the reinstatement order to the NLRC. Petitioners did not appeal the finding of guilt but moved for a writ of reinstatement. After procedural events including the issuance of an alias writ of execution and garnishment of respondent’s bank account, the NLRC granted respondent’s appeals, deleting the reinstatement order and setting aside the writs and garnishment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of guilt but ordered respondent to pay petitioners backwages from October 20, 2004 (Arbiter’s decision) to June 30, 2005 (NLRC decision), citing Article 223 of the Labor Code and Roquero v. Philippine Airlines. Petitioners filed the present petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly limited the payment of backwages to the period from the Labor Arbiter’s decision until the NLRC decision.
2. Whether the petitioners committed serious misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, and breach of trust warranting dismissal.

RULING

1. The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals’ order for respondent to pay backwages for the specified period has become final as respondent did not appeal it. However, on the merits, the petitioners’ reliance on Roquero and Article 223 is misplaced. Article 223 provides for interim reinstatement pending appeal in illegal dismissal cases and does not apply here because there was no finding of illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter’s finding that the dismissal was valid had become final, as petitioners did not appeal it. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, full backwages are only due if the dismissal is unjust. Since the dismissal was found valid, petitioners are not entitled to full backwages.
2. The finding that petitioners committed dishonesty as a form of serious misconduct and fraud or breach of trust, warranting dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, had become final and executory because petitioners did not appeal the Labor Arbiter’s decision on this matter. They only moved for the execution of the reinstatement aspect. Therefore, this issue can no longer be reviewed.