G.R. No. 104389 May 27, 1994
ZAMBOANGA CITY WATER DISTRICT, petitioner, vs. PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUSIB M. BUAT, COMMISSIONERS LEON G. GONZAGA, JR., and OSCAR N. ABELLA, and PRIVATE RESPONDENTS LUIS C. MARIANO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zamboanga City Water District is a government-owned and controlled corporation. Private respondents are its employees who participated in a strike in March 1987 and were subsequently separated. Petitioner filed a complaint to declare the strike illegal (NLRC Case No. RAB-IX-03-0090-87). The union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal (NLRC Case No. RAB-IX-03-0092-87). The cases were consolidated. On April 19, 1988, the Executive Labor Arbiter declared both the strike and the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement without back wages. The NLRC affirmed this on July 17, 1990, with the modification that strike leader Felix Laquio be suspended for six months without pay. Petitioner received the NLRC decision on August 27, 1990. Private respondents moved for execution. On September 28, 1990, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order in G.R. Nos. 95219-20 enjoining execution. On March 13, 1991, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in G.R. Nos. 95219-20, affirmed the NLRC decision, and lifted the restraining order. Petitioner received this decision on April 10, 1991, and reinstated 27 employees on April 16, 1991, informing that Laquio would be reinstated on October 16, 1991, after his suspension. Private respondents filed a motion to compel Laquio’s immediate reinstatement and payment of back wages. The Executive Labor Arbiter denied the motion. The NLRC, on appeal, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s order, directing Laquio’s reinstatement and granting back wages to him from March 6, 1991, and to the others from March 21, 1989, to April 15, 1991, including the period of the TRO. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
2. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering payment of salaries during the effectivity of the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order.

RULING

1. On jurisdiction: Petitioner, a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter, is subject to Civil Service Law. Jurisdiction over the strike and dismissal is lodged with the Civil Service Commission, not the NLRC. However, petitioner is estopped from assailing the NLRC’s jurisdiction because it voluntarily invoked and actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, and raised the issue only after an adverse order for back wages. A party cannot repudiate a jurisdiction it sought affirmative relief from.
2. On back wages during the TRO: The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order was immediately executory under Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, effective March 21, 1989. The Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order merely suspended the implementation of the reinstatement pending the determination of the petition’s validity. Since the Court ultimately affirmed the NLRC decision and recognized the right to reinstatement in G.R. Nos. 95219-20, private respondents are entitled to wages accruing during the TRO’s effectivity. The NLRC correctly computed back wages: for most private respondents from March 21, 1989 (the effectivity of the amendatory law making reinstatement immediately executory) to April 15, 1991 (the day before their actual reinstatement); for Laquio, from March 6, 1991 (after his suspension period) until his actual reinstatement.
The petition was dismissed.