GR 108405; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108405; April 4, 2003
JAIME D. VIERNES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (BENECO), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were hired by BENECO as meter reader apprentices under fixed-term contracts from October 8 to 31, 1990. Despite the contract’s expiration, they were allowed to continue working until January 2, 1991, when they were terminated via notices citing retrenchment due to overstaffing. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal, arguing they were regular employees, not apprentices. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint but ordered payment for underpayment of wages and, for most petitioners, an indemnity for lack of a 30-day notice or an option for financial assistance.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC modified the decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement as meter readers with one year of backwages, while affirming the wage underpayment award but deleting the indemnity and attorney’s fees. Petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) ordering reinstatement on probationary status despite finding petitioners were regular employees, and (2) limiting backwages to one year despite a finding of illegal dismissal.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that the NLRC’s decision was contradictory. Having found petitioners to be regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code, as their work as meter readers was necessary and desirable to BENECO’s main business and they performed beyond their original contract period, the NLRC could not legally order their reinstatement under a probationary status. Regular employment status is incompatible with probationary employment. The Court thus modified the order to reinstate petitioners as regular employees.
On the second issue, the NLRC also gravely abused its discretion in limiting backwages to one year. Under prevailing jurisprudence at the time of dismissal, an employee illegally dismissed is entitled to full backwages from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement. The Court cited the rule that where an employee is unjustly dismissed, the employer is liable for backwages without qualifications or deductions. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to full backwages from their dismissal until actual reinstatement. The Court also reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s award of indemnity for failure to give a 30-day notice and granted attorney’s fees.