GR 250147; (February, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 250147 , February 10, 2021
Laureano Concordo, Represented by Herein Helen Concordo, et al., Petitioner, vs. Erjohn & Almark Transit Corp., et al., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, employees of respondent Erjohn & Almark Transit Corp., filed an illegal dismissal case. On September 30, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division rendered a Decision dismissing their appeal and affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding that they were not dismissed. The NLRC ordered their reinstatement within five days from receipt of the Decision. Petitioners moved for reconsideration. On November 22, 2010, while their motion was pending, they reported for work pursuant to the NLRC Decision but were refused reinstatement by the respondent company. The NLRC denied their motion for reconsideration on November 25, 2010. Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 118079), which denied the petition on February 25, 2013. Their subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 209710) was denied via Resolution on January 13, 2014, and their motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on June 16, 2014. An Entry of Judgment was issued on July 31, 2014.
Meanwhile, the NLRC’s September 30, 2010 Decision was recorded as having attained finality on December 24, 2010, as no injunction was issued by the CA. On May 3, 2011, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution for reinstatement with the Labor Arbiter, seeking payroll reinstatement and back salaries from October 1, 2010. On February 22, 2012, the Labor Arbiter ordered the writ’s issuance and awarded accrued wages. The NLRC First Division, upon respondent’s petition, nullified this Order on May 10, 2012, ruling the NLRC’s reinstatement order was not immediately executory and that it was premature for petitioners to report for work while their motion for reconsideration was pending. This NLRC Resolution became final on June 8, 2012.
On August 6, 2013, the Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution for reinstatement. Respondent refused reinstatement upon service on September 10, 2013. On July 31, 2014, petitioners filed another motion for execution of accrued salaries from September 10, 2013. The Labor Arbiter granted this on August 27, 2014. The NLRC, upon respondent’s petition, nullified this Order on November 21, 2014, holding petitioners’ right to reinstatement and back wages only ripened on June 16, 2014 (the date of finality of the Supreme Court’s denial in G.R. No. 209710), and they could not claim accrued wages prior to that date. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 140194). The CA, in its assailed Decision dated May 23, 2019, denied the petition. It held that the NLRC’s September 30, 2010 Decision only attained finality on June 16, 2014, when the Supreme Court’s denial became final. Prior to that, as petitioners had challenged the NLRC Decision with the CA and the Supreme Court, it had not attained finality and no writ of execution could validly issue. The CA emphasized that, unlike a Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order which is immediately executory, an NLRC reinstatement order is not self-executory. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
What is the reckoning date for the execution of the NLRC Decision dated September 30, 2010 ordering the reinstatement of petitioners, and consequently, from when should their reinstatement back salaries be computed?
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The reckoning date for the execution of the NLRC’s reinstatement order and the computation of back salaries is June 16, 2014, the date the NLRC Decision attained finality.
The Court held that the NLRC’s September 30, 2010 Decision did not become final and executory until the judicial review process was completed. Petitioners’ filing of a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, followed by a petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 118079), and finally a petition for review with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 209710), suspended the finality of the NLRC Decision. It only attained finality on June 16, 2014, when the Supreme Court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration with finality. Consequently, the reinstatement order became enforceable only from that date.
The Court distinguished between a reinstatement order issued by a Labor Arbiter, which is immediately executory under Article 223 of the Labor Code, and one issued by the NLRC, which is not self-executory. For an NLRC reinstatement order to be implemented, a writ of execution must first be secured after the decision has attained finality. Since the NLRC Decision was not final when petitioners reported for work on November 22, 2010, or when the first writ was issued in 2013, the respondent company’s refusal to reinstate them at those times was not unjustified. Petitioners’ right to reinstatement and back salaries accrued only from the finality of the NLRC Decision on June 16, 2014.