G.R. No. 175293 , July 23, 2014
CRISANTO F. CASTRO, JR., Petitioner, vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, FR. JOEL ABORA, and MR. EDWIN BERNAL, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Crisanto F. Castro, Jr. was a regular faculty member of respondent Ateneo de Naga University. He was informed that his contract would not be renewed upon its expiration on May 31, 2000. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor on September 3, 2001, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement (either actual or payroll) and payment of backwages and damages. The respondents appealed to the NLRC. The petitioner filed a motion to order the respondents to pay his salaries and benefits accruing from the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision (September 3, 2001) during the pendency of the appeal. The Labor Arbiter denied this motion, directing the respondents instead to exercise their option of actual or payroll reinstatement. The petitioner elevated this denial to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. Meanwhile, on June 26, 2004, the petitioner executed a Receipt and Quitclaim for his retirement benefits under the University’s plan, but he signed it “UNDER PROTEST,” stating it was without prejudice to his pending case. Subsequently, the NLRC, on motion for reconsideration, reversed its initial ruling and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal on August 31, 2005, holding that the quitclaim estopped him from pursuing further claims. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the petitioner’s pending certiorari petition (regarding the claim for accrued salaries during appeal) as moot and academic due to the NLRC’s dismissal of the main illegal dismissal complaint. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s claim for accrued salaries and benefits during the period between the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement and his actual reinstatement (pending appeal) was rendered moot and academic by the NLRC’s subsequent reversal and dismissal of his illegal dismissal complaint.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The claim for accrued salaries during the period of reinstatement pending appeal was not mooted by the eventual reversal of the illegal dismissal decision. Citing Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., the Court held that an order of reinstatement is immediately executory. The employer is obliged to reinstate the dismissed employee and pay his wages during the period of appeal of the decision in the employee’s favor, even if the decision is later reversed. The employee is not required to reimburse the salaries received if the decision is reversed. The Court found that the respondents reinstated the petitioner only in November 2002, and their failure to immediately reinstate him after the Labor Arbiter’s September 3, 2001 decision was without valid ground. Therefore, they were liable to pay his accrued salaries from the date they received the Labor Arbiter’s decision until his actual reinstatement in November 2002. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation of the accrued salaries.