G.R. No. 155109 , G.R. No. 155135 and G.R. No. 179220; March 14, 2012
C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents. / NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), ET AL., Petitioners, vs. C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a bargaining deadlock between C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. (CASI) and Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union), leading to a strike. The Labor Arbiter (LA) declared the strike illegal for violating the CBA’s no-strike clause. The LA dismissed the Union officers, ordering them to pay damages, but ordered the reinstatement of the rank-and-file Union members without backwages. The NLRC later modified this, upholding the illegal strike declaration but also validating the dismissal of the Union members. The Court of Appeals annulled the NLRC and reinstated the LA’s decision.
During the appeal’s pendency, the Union members filed a motion for reinstatement pending appeal. Instead of reinstating them, the LA awarded separation pay. The NLRC denied this claim. The CA ruled that reinstatement pending appeal was no longer applicable as the main case had already been decided by the Supreme Court. The consolidated cases reached the Supreme Court on motions for reconsideration of its September 29, 2010 Decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the Union members, who were ordered reinstated without backwages by the final and executory LA decision (as reinstated by the CA), are entitled to backwages and other monetary claims for the period they were not actually reinstated by CASI despite the executory nature of the reinstatement order.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motions for reconsideration and affirmed its prior ruling. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between the consequences of an illegal strike and the employer’s separate duty to comply with an executory reinstatement order. The final LA decision, which became executory, only declared the strike illegal and dismissed the Union officers. For the rank-and-file members, it imposed the single penalty of reinstatement without backwages. This penalty was final.
The Court held that CASI’s refusal to actually reinstate the employees upon the finality of the LA decision, despite the order being immediately executory under Article 223 of the Labor Code, constituted a distinct violation. This separate defiance of a lawful order entitles the employees to backwages from the date the reinstatement order became final until actual reinstatement. The award of backwages in this context is not a penalty for the illegal strike—for which they were already penalized via reinstatement without backwages—but is compensation for the wages they lost due to the employer’s unjustified refusal to comply with the judicial directive. The employer cannot benefit from its own disobedience to a final order.