This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| BACIWA states that there should be no award of back salaries and other benefits to Bayona. Substantial justice militates against BACIWA's position. Substantial justice cannot be served if we continue to allow BACIWA to treat Bayona as retired at age 60 even after the annulment of its CBA provision mandating retirement at 60 years. When the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 45369 stated that "PD 1146 gives Bayona a right to be compulsorily retired at age 65 and he cannot waive that right because such waiver is contrary to public policy,"[21] the appellate court definitely did not bar Bayona's reinstatement and payment of back salaries and other benefits. If at all, this pronouncement supports Bayona's position. The appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 is correct in saying that "as a necessary consequence of his reinstatement to the service, Mr. Bayona must be compensated for [lost] income arising from his illegal removal by forced retirement."[22] The sufficiency and efficacy of a judgment must be tested by its substance rather than its form. In construing a judgment, its legal effects including such effects that necessarily follow because of legal implications, rather than the language used, govern. Also, its meaning, operation, and consequences must be ascertained like any other written instrument. Thus, a judgment rests on the intention of the court as gathered from every part thereof, including the situation to which it applies and the attendant circumstances.[23] BACIWA further insists that there should be no award of back salaries and other benefits because of the appellate court's declaration in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 that "[w]ith the Tripartite Committee (that included the CSC), agreeing to continue the existence of said CBA up to its expiry date, there was no bad faith involved in BACIWA's decision to retire Bayona."[24] BACIWA cannot rely on this declaration. | |||||