GR 152329; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152329; April 22, 2003
ALEJANDRO ROQUERO, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Alejandro Roquero, a ground equipment mechanic for Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), was caught red-handed using shabu within company premises during a raid involving PAL security and NARCOM agents. Roquero and a co-employee, Rene Pabayo, claimed they were instigated by a certain Jojie Alipato, who they alleged was introduced by a PAL manager. Following the incident, they tested positive for drugs and executed written confessions without counsel. PAL subsequently charged them under its Code of Discipline and, after administrative proceedings, dismissed them for serious misconduct. Roquero filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissal but awarded separation pay. The NLRC reversed, ordering reinstatement without backwages, finding PAL guilty of instigation, a conclusion bolstered by Roquero’s acquittal in a related criminal case on the same ground. PAL appealed to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether instigation by the employer absolves an employee from dismissal for serious misconduct; and (2) whether the employee is entitled to wages during the period of appeal when a reinstatement order is issued but later reversed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed Roquero’s dismissal but ordered PAL to pay his wages from the time the NLRC reinstatement order was issued until the finality of this decision. On the first issue, the Court ruled that while instigation is a valid defense in criminal law, it does not preclude dismissal for serious misconduct under labor law. Roquero’s act of using prohibited drugs on duty constituted a willful violation of a specific company rule. As his role involved aircraft maintenance, his drug use directly related to his duties and rendered him unfit for a position where public safety was paramount. PAL also complied with procedural due process. On the second issue, the Court held that under Article 223 of the Labor Code, a reinstatement order is immediately executory. Therefore, PAL was obligated to reinstate Roquero or, at its option, reinstate him in the payroll during the appeal. Its failure to do so, despite the eventual reversal of the reinstatement order, entitles Roquero to payment of his wages for that period. The employer’s recourse is to seek a stay order, which PAL did not obtain.