This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Notwithstanding our ruling that there was just cause for dismissal, we reject UIC's claim for reimbursement of the amount it has paid to Respondent Employees for being contrary to established jurisprudence. The prevailing rule is that an employee cannot be compelled to reimburse the salaries and wages he received during the pendency of the appeal, notwithstanding the subsequent reversal of the order of reinstatement.[80] As we held in the case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., "it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court."[81] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The same issue had been raised and addressed by the Court in the case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.[26] In the said case, the Court deliberated on the application of Paragraph 3, Article 223 of the Labor Code in light of the apparent divergence in its interpretation, specifically on the contemplation of the reinstatement aspect of the LA decision. The pertinent portion of the provision reads, thus:In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein.[27] (Emphasis and underscoring in the original) | |||||
|
2012-08-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The new NLRC Rules of Procedure, which took effect on January 7, 2006, now requires the employer to submit a report of compliance within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the LA's decision, disobedience to which clearly denotes a refusal to reinstate.[41] The employee need no longer file a motion for issuance of a writ of execution, since the LA shall thereafter motu proprio issue the writ. With the new rules, there will be no difficulty in determining the employer's intransigence in immediately complying with the order.[42] | |||||
|
2011-03-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the recent milestone case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[35] the Court wrote finis to the stray posture in Genuino requiring the dismissed employee placed on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries in case a final decision upholds the validity of the dismissal. In Garcia, we clarified the principle of reinstatement pending appeal due to the emergence of differing rulings on the issue, to wit: On this score, the Court's attention is drawn to seemingly divergent decisions concerning reinstatement pending appeal or, particularly, the option of payroll reinstatement. On the one hand is the jurisprudential trend as expounded in a line of cases including Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora, while on the other is the recent case of Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission. At the core of the seeming divergence is the application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code x x x. | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The core issue to be resolved in this case is similar to the one determined in Garcia v. Philippine Airlines Inc.,[31] that is, whether respondents may collect their wages during the period between the Labor Arbiter's order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC Resolution overturning that of the Labor Arbiter. | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| True, a Division of the Court in Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission[15] diverged from Roquero by requiring refund or set-off of salaries received post-reversal of the reinstatement order.[16] However, the Court en banc in Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[17] nipped Genuino in the bud and reaffirmed the Roquero line of jurisprudence: [T]he Genuino ruling not only disregards the social justice principles behind the rule [in Article 223], but also institutes a scheme unduly favorable to management. Under such scheme, the salaries dispensed pendente lite merely serve as a bond posted in installment by the employer. For in the event of a reversal of the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering reinstatement, the employer gets back the same amount without having to spend ordinarily for bond premiums. This circumvents, if not directly contradicts, the proscription that the "posting of a bond [even a cash bond] by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement." | |||||
|
2010-03-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[18] the Court made a very enlightening discussion on the aspect of reinstatement pending appeal: On this score, the Court's attention is drawn to seemingly divergent decisions concerning reinstatement pending appeal or, particularly, the option of payroll reinstatement. On the one hand is the jurisprudential trend as expounded in a line of cases including Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora, while on the other is the recent case of Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission. At the core of the seeming divergence is the application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code x x x | |||||
|
2009-04-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| and, very recently, in this Court's en banc Decision in the same Garcia v. Philippine Airlines,[41] we had the occasion to restate this oft-repeated verdict, thus:It is settled that upon appointment by the SEC of a rehabilitation receiver, all actions for claims before any court, tribunal or board against the corporation shall ipso jure be suspended. As stated early on, during the pendency of petitioners' complaint before the Labor Arbiter, the SEC placed respondent under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver. After the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision, the SEC replaced the Interim Rehabilitation Receiver with a Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver. | |||||