This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, entitles an illegally dismissed employee to reinstatement. Article 223 of the Labor Code requires the reinstatement to be immediately executory even pending appeal. With its intent being ostensibly to promote the benefit of the employee, Article 223 cannot be the source of any right of the employer to remove the employee should he fail to immediately comply with the order of reinstatement.[31] In Roquero, the Court ruled that the unjustified refusal of the employer to reinstate the dismissed employee would entitle the latter to the payment of his salaries effective from the time when the employer failed to reinstate him; thus, it became the ministerial duty of the LA to implement the order of reinstatement.[32] According to Triad Security & Allied Services v. Ortega, Jr.,[33] the law mandates the prompt reinstatement of the dismissed or separated employee, without need of any writ of execution. In Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, [34] the Court has further observed: x x x The provision of Article 223 is clear that an award for reinstatement shall be immediately executory even pending appeal and the posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement. The legislative intent is quite obvious, i.e., to make an award of reinstatement immediately enforceable, even pending appeal. To require the application for and issuance of a wit of execution as prerequisites for the execution of a reinstatement award would certainly betray and run counter to the very object and intent of Article 223, i.e., the immediate execution of a reinstatement order. The reason is simple. An application for a writ of execution and its issuance could be delayed for numerous reasons. A mere continuance of postponement of a scheduled hearing, for instance, or an inaction on the part of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC could easily delay the issuance of the writ thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by Article 223. In other words, if the requirements of Article 224 were to govern, as we so declared in Maranaw, then the executory nature of a reinstatement order or award contemplated by Article 223 will be unduly circumscribed and rendered ineffectual. In enacting the law, the legislature is presumed to have ordained a valid and sensible law, one which operates no further than may be necessary to achieve its specific purpose. Statutes, as a rule, are to be construed in the lights of the purpose to be achieved and the evil sought to be remedied. And where the statute is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions, that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the lawmaker and promote the object for which the statute was enacted, and a construction should be rejected which would tend to render abortive other provisions of the statute and to defeat the object which the legislator sought to attain by its enactment. In introducing a new rule on the reinstatement aspect of a labor decision under R.A. No. 6715, Congress should not be considered to be indulging in mere semantic exercise. On appeal, however, the appellate tribunal concerned may enjoin or suspend the reinstatement order in the exercise of its sound discretion. | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Although we recognize the inherent right of the employer to discipline its employees, we should still ensure that the employer exercises the prerogative to discipline humanely and considerately, and that the sanction imposed is commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. The discipline exacted by the employer should further consider the employee's length of service and the number of infractions during his employment.[27] The employer should never forget that always at stake in disciplining its employee are not only his position but also his livelihood,[28] and that he may also have a family entirely dependent on his earnings.[29] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The new NLRC Rules of Procedure, which took effect on January 7, 2006, now require the employer to submit a report of compliance within 10 calendar days from receipt of the Labor Arbiter's decision,[29] disobedience to which clearly denotes a refusal to reinstate. The employee need not file a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution since the Labor Arbiter shall thereafter motu proprio issue the writ. With the new rules in place, there is hardly any difficulty in determining the employer's intransigence in immediately complying with the order. | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals upheld the decision and resolution of the NLRC. According to the appellate court, although the NLRC ordered the immediate reinstatement of petitioners in its August 21, 1992 decision, the order was not self-executory because the rule decreeing an order for reinstatement immediately executory was only enunciated by the Court in its decision in Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC[6] dated October 16, 1997. Petitioners should have moved for the issuance of a writ of execution of the NLRC decision. However, petitioners only moved for the execution of the NLRC decision on August 11, 1999. | |||||