G.R. No. 147806 November 12, 2002
NERISSA BUENVIAJE, SONIA FLORES, BELMA OLIVIO, GENALYN PELOBELLO, MARY JANE MENOR, JOSIE RAQUERO, ESTRELITA MANAHAN, REBECCA EBOL, and ERLINDA ARGA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER SEVENTH DIVISION), HONORABLE ARBITER ROMULUS PROTASIO, COTTONWAY MARKETING CORPORATION and MICHAEL G. TONG, President and General Manager, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, former promo girls for Cottonway Marketing Corp., were terminated in October 1994 on the ground of business losses. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. On December 19, 1995, Labor Arbiter Romulus Protasio found the retrenchment valid but awarded separation pay and proportionate 13th month pay. On appeal, the NLRC, in a Decision dated March 26, 1996, reversed the Labor Arbiter, declared the dismissal illegal, and ordered Cottonway to reinstate petitioners without loss of seniority rights and to pay them full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits computed from the time their salaries were withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement, plus proportionate 13th month pay. Cottonway’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
On August 30, 1996, Cottonway filed a manifestation with the NLRC stating it had complied with the reinstatement order by sending notices dated June 5, 1996, requiring petitioners to return to work, but they did not comply. Consequently, Cottonway sent letters dated August 1, 1996, informing petitioners they had lost their employment for failure to report. Cottonway’s petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court was dismissed.
Petitioners filed a motion for execution of the final NLRC decision. The NLRC Research Unit computed the monetary award. Cottonway filed manifestations alleging petitioners had found employment elsewhere and prayed for reception of evidence, which the NLRC denied. On April 8, 1998, Labor Arbiter Protasio issued an Order limiting the award of backwages and 13th month pay from the time of illegal dismissal up to the time petitioners received the notice of termination for refusing to report for work. The NLRC, in a Resolution dated September 21, 1998, set aside this Order, ruling that its March 26, 1996 Decision had become final and executory, and it was the Labor Arbiter’s ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution.
Cottonway filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, in its Decision dated March 13, 2000, granted the petition, ruling that petitioners’ reinstatement was no longer possible due to their deliberate refusal to return to work, and that backwages should be computed only up to the time they received the notice of termination on August 27, 1996. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the computation of petitioners’ backwages should be limited from the time of their illegal dismissal until they received Cottonway’s notice of termination on August 1, 1996, or whether it should be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until their actual reinstatement (or finality of the decision if reinstatement is no longer possible).

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The computation of backwages should be from the time their compensation was actually withheld until their actual reinstatement, or if reinstatement is no longer possible, until the finality of the decision, in accordance with the final and executory NLRC Decision dated March 26, 1996.
The Court held that the NLRC decision, which ordered reinstatement and payment of full backwages up to actual reinstatement, had attained finality. The subsequent notices sent by Cottonway did not constitute valid reinstatement offers. The June 5, 1996 notices gave petitioners only five days to report, which was unreasonable and indicated a lack of sincere intent to reinstate. Cottonway’s immediate termination of petitioners upon their failure to report within that short period confirmed this. Therefore, petitioners’ failure to report did not constitute a refusal of a valid reinstatement offer that would justify limiting backwages. Petitioners are entitled to full backwages without deduction for earnings elsewhere, as provided under R.A. 6715. The Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution were reversed and set aside. The records were remanded to the Labor Arbiter for execution of the NLRC’s March 26, 1996 Decision.