G.R. No. 107225 , June 2, 1995
Archilles Manufacturing Corporation, Alberto Yu and Adrian Yu, petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Geronimo Manuel, Arnulfo Diaz, Jaime Carunungan and Benjamin Rindon, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents were laborers at petitioner Archilles Manufacturing Corporation’s steel factory. The company prohibited workers from bringing family members to the bunkhouse after a prior incident. Despite this rule, private respondents continued to bring their families, causing disturbances. On May 11, 1990, management ordered them to remove their families and explain their violation. They complied by removing their families but then absented themselves from work from May 14 to 18, 1990. Consequently, petitioners terminated their employment for abandonment and violation of a company rule.
Private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement, payment of backwages, proportionate 13th month pay for 1990, and attorney’s fees. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. During the appeal, private respondents filed motions for a writ of execution to enforce the reinstatement order pending appeal. The NLRC ultimately reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding the dismissal valid for willful disobedience. However, it ordered petitioners to pay private respondents’ salaries from September 19, 1991 (the date petitioners opposed the motion for execution) until the NLRC decision’s promulgation, citing the immediately executory nature of reinstatement orders. It also upheld the award of proportionate 13th month pay and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether a writ of execution is necessary to enforce a Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order pending appeal; (2) whether dismissal for cause results in forfeiture of the right to 13th month pay; and (3) whether the award of attorney’s fees is proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that while a reinstatement order is immediately executory under Article 223 of the Labor Code, it is not self-executing. A writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter is necessary to enforce it. Since no such writ was issued in this case, petitioners were under no legal obligation to reinstate the employees (either actually or on the payroll) during the appeal. Therefore, the NLRC’s order for petitioners to pay “withheld” salaries from September 1991 lacked legal basis.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed the award of proportionate 13th month pay for 1990. Citing P.D. 851 and its implementing rules, the 13th month pay is a statutory benefit that vests in an employee who has worked for at least one month during the calendar year. This benefit is proportionately earned and is not forfeited even if the employee is later dismissed for a just cause.
On the third issue, the Court deleted the award of attorney’s fees. Under Article 111 of the Labor Code, such fees are proper only in cases of unlawful withholding of wages. Since the Court found no obligation to pay salaries during the appeal period due to the absence of a writ of execution, there was no unlawful withholding of wages to justify the award.