G.R. No. 115452 December 21, 1998
International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Gabriel Tanpiengco

FACTS

Petitioner International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) is a stevedoring corporation operating the Manila International Container Terminal. It employed private respondent Gabriel Tanpiengco as a CFS Priority on July 12, 1988. On March 7, 1990, Tanpiengco was assigned at Bodega I. While preparing to clean himself at the end of his shift, he took his T-shirt hanging from a post and proceeded to the washroom. He was accosted by a security guard for behaving suspiciously, frisked, and taken to the security office where he was accused of stealing a T-shirt marked “Gesim Corp.” from a balikbayan box. On March 21, 1990, he was investigated by petitioner’s personnel department. Petitioner claimed Tanpiengco admitted the theft, while Tanpiengco insisted he was coerced into a false admission. On April 30, 1990, after a brief suspension, Tanpiengco was dismissed for pilferage, considered a breach of trust and dishonesty.
Tanpiengco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter, on December 3, 1990, found the dismissal unjustified, gave credence to Tanpiengco’s claim that the T-shirt was his own, and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter on September 23, 1993, finding the termination legal and dismissing the complaint. However, the NLRC ordered petitioner to pay Tanpiengco his wages from January 25, 1991 (the date of filing of the appeal with the NLRC) up to September 23, 1993 (the date of the NLRC decision’s promulgation) pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code. Both parties moved for reconsideration, which was denied on April 6, 1994.
Petitioner ICTSI filed this special civil action for certiorari, contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding back wages for that period to an employee found to have been validly dismissed. Petitioner argued that the reinstatement order required execution or enforcement by the employee, and since Tanpiengco never pursued execution and no writ was issued, his inaction prevented actual reinstatement. Tanpiengco countered that he did not waive reinstatement and had filed a motion for a writ of execution with the NLRC on February 27, 1991, but the NLRC failed to act on it.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner to pay Tanpiengco his wages from January 25, 1991, to September 23, 1993, despite ultimately finding his dismissal valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and SUSTAINED the NLRC decision ordering the payment of wages for the stated period. The Court held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The Court, applying its ruling in Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. NLRC, held that an order or award for reinstatement is self-executory pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended. This means it does not require a writ of execution or a motion for its issuance to be effective. Article 223 provides that the reinstatement aspect of a Labor Arbiter’s decision is immediately executory even pending appeal. The employer must immediately exercise the option to either actually re-admit the employee to work under the same terms and conditions or reinstate the employee in the payroll, and must inform the employee of this choice.
Since the reinstatement order was immediately executory upon petitioner’s receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, petitioner was duty-bound to choose and inform Tanpiengco of its option. Petitioner’s failure to exercise either option obligated it to pay Tanpiengco’s salary, which automatically accrued from notice of the reinstatement order until its ultimate reversal by the NLRC. The Court clarified that Article 224 of the Labor Code, which mentions writs of execution, applies only to final and executory decisions, not to immediately executory reinstatement orders pending appeal under Article 223.
The Court noted that while Tanpiengco had filed a motion for a writ of execution which the NLRC failed to act upon, this inaction did not adversely affect his claim under the Pioneer doctrine, though the NLRC was admonished for its serious oversight. The award of wages from the date of the appeal (January 25, 1991) until the NLRC’s reversal (September 23, 1993) was proper.