G.R. No. 206716, June 18, 2014
RUBEN C. JORDAN, Petitioner, vs. GRANDEUR SECURITY & SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ruben C. Jordan, along with co-employees, filed complaints for money claims against respondent Grandeur Security & Services, Inc. for non-payment of minimum wages, holiday pay, premium, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, and cost of living allowance, and for illegal deductions for insurance premiums. Jordan later amended his complaint to include illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Jordan was not illegally dismissed but had been transferred; however, the LA also ordered Grandeur Security to “reinstate” Jordan to his former position without backwages and awarded monetary claims. Grandeur Security partially appealed only the monetary awards, not the reinstatement order, and claimed it mailed a return-to-work order to Jordan. The NLRC denied the appeal, and the LA’s decision became final. During execution, Jordan executed a quitclaim for his money claims but noted the reinstatement issue was still pending. The LA later terminated the proceedings, finding Jordan waived reinstatement by not reporting for work. Jordan appealed to the NLRC, claiming he never received the return-to-work order and submitted specimen signatures to dispute the receipt. The NLRC set aside the LA’s order, ruling Jordan was entitled to backwages and separation pay due to Grandeur Security’s non-compliance with the reinstatement order. The Court of Appeals nullified the NLRC ruling, holding that the NLRC could not alter the final LA decision and that the proper remedy for non-compliance with reinstatement was contempt, not an award of backwages and separation pay.

ISSUE

1. Whether an employee who is not terminated from employment may be reinstated to work.
2. Whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC rulings are null and void.
a. Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction over Jordan’s appeal.
b. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in altering the final LA decision.
3. Whether Jordan waived his right to work with Grandeur Security.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision.
1. On reinstatement: The Court harmonized the conflicting dispositions in the LA’s final decision. The LA’s order for reinstatement was absurd because Jordan was found not to have been dismissed. Reinstatement presupposes prior dismissal. The dispositive portion must be read in harmony with the decision’s body, which dismissed the illegal dismissal charge. Thus, there was no dismissal to warrant reinstatement.
2. On the NLRC’s jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The NLRC had no jurisdiction to award backwages and separation pay based on non-compliance with the reinstatement order. The LA’s May 27, 2008 decision had become final and immutable. The proper remedy for an employer’s refusal to comply with a reinstatement order is a contempt proceeding under the NLRC Rules, not a new award for backwages and separation pay. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion by substantially altering the final judgment.
3. On waiver: The Court found Jordan waived his right to reinstatement. He repeatedly prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement in his pleadings, indicating he did not desire to return to work. Even assuming non-receipt of the return-to-work order, the presumption of regularity in mail delivery, supported by the registry receipt and return card, prevailed over his denial. His actions demonstrated abandonment of any right to reinstatement.