GR 115395; (February, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115395 February 12, 1998
FILFLEX INDUSTRIAL & MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and/or CELIA BUENCONSEJO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU) AND SALUD GALING, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Salud Galing, a sewer employed since 1975, was dismissed by petitioner Filflex Industrial & Manufacturing Corporation on February 11, 1991 on the ground of abandonment. The company cited her history of habitual tardiness and frequent absences, including an unexcused absence from November 30, 1990 to December 11, 1990, despite repeated warnings. Galing claimed her absences were due to chronic asthmatic bronchitis. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal improper and unjust, awarding her limited backwages for six months and separation pay, but did not order reinstatement, stating separation would be to the “mutual advantage” and for her “physical and health welfare.” On appeal, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling the dismissal was justified. However, the NLRC, citing Article 223 of the Labor Code, ordered petitioners to pay Galing her salaries from the date of the filing of the appeal (April 10, 1992) up to the promulgation of its Resolution (October 29, 1993), on the premise that reinstatement pending appeal was mandatory.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding back wages to the employee for the period during the pendency of the appeal, despite (1) the Labor Arbiter’s decision not ordering reinstatement, and (2) the NLRC’s own finding that the dismissal was legal.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The petition is granted and the award of back wages is deleted.
1. Article 223 of the Labor Code, which mandates immediate reinstatement (actual or on payroll) pending appeal, applies only when the Labor Arbiter’s decision itself orders the reinstatement of a dismissed employee. In this case, the Labor Arbiter’s dispositive portion and text did not order reinstatement; instead, it awarded separation pay and expressly found that separation from service was to the parties’ mutual advantage and the employee’s welfare. An order for reinstatement cannot be presumed from the grant of limited backwages; it must be specifically declared.
2. The NLRC’s award of back wages during the appeal period is fundamentally inconsistent with its own finding that the dismissal was justified. Since the dismissal was deemed valid, the employee is not entitled to reinstatement or back wages. Furthermore, as the employee did not appeal the NLRC’s reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s award of separation pay, she cannot obtain any affirmative relief from such reversal.