G.R. No. 167563 March 22, 2010
College of the Immaculate Conception, Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Atty. Marius F. Carlos, Ph.D., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner College of the Immaculate Conception appointed respondent Atty. Marius F. Carlos as Dean of the Department of Business, Economics and Accountancy for a fixed term from June 1, 1996 to May 31, 2000. Upon the term’s expiration, he was appointed as a full-time professor without diminution of salary. Respondent requested overload pay for his eight teaching loads, which petitioner denied, citing the Faculty Manual defining a full-time load as eight teaching loads. Petitioner also directed respondent to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for engaging in law practice and teaching at another law school without prior permission. Respondent admitted teaching elsewhere without written permission, claiming it was unnecessary. Petitioner, in a letter dated July 17, 2000, gave respondent two options: remain a full-time professor without outside teaching loads (with law practice subject to prior approval) or become a part-time professor with freedom to teach elsewhere and practice law but losing tenure. Respondent failed to respond. Petitioner, citing Section 16.8 of CHED Memorandum No. 19, s. 1998 (which mandates formal notice for teaching in more than one school, with failure resulting in automatic withdrawal of teaching assignment), informed respondent he would not be assigned any teaching load for the succeeding semester. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, declaring the termination illegal and ordering his reinstatement to his former position as Dean with backwages and damages. Petitioner reinstated respondent in its payroll only. On appeal, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the complaint, but ordered petitioner to reinstate respondent as a full-time professor without backwages. The NLRC ruled that respondent’s contract as Dean was for a fixed period and had expired, and the non-assignment of teaching load was a sanction under CHED rules. Petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification and/or Partial Reconsideration, praying that respondent be directed to refund all amounts received through payroll reinstatement. The NLRC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals sustained the NLRC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Does the subsequent reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s findings mean that respondent should reimburse petitioner all the salaries and benefits he received pursuant to the immediate execution of the Labor Arbiter’s erroneous decision ordering his reinstatement as Department Dean?

RULING

No. The Court ruled that even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. If the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period. The mistake of the Labor Arbiter in ordering reinstatement as Dean cannot alter the fact that during the pendency of the appeal, his order for reinstatement was immediately executory under Article 223 of the Labor Code.