ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BIENVENIDO ARICAYOS,

respondents.
G.R. No. 130866
September 16, 1998
REGALADO, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Manager of petitioner St. Martin Funeral Home on February
6, 1995. However, there was no contract of employment executed between him and petitioner nor was his name included in the
semi-monthly payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his employment for allegedly misappropriating
P38,000.00. Petitioner on the other hand claims that private respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of Amelita
Malabed, the owner of petitioner St.Martins Funeral Home and in January 1996, the mother of Amelita passed away, so the
latter took over the management of the business.
Amelita made some changes in the business operation and private respondent and his wife were no longer allowed to
participate in the management thereof. As a consequence, the latter filed a complaint charging that petitioner had illegally
terminated his employment. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner declaring that no employer-employee
relationship existed between the parties and therefore his office had no jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE: Whether the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the Court of Appeals.
RULING:
The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the SC were eliminated, the legislative
intendment was that the special civil action for certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of
the NLRC. The use of the word appeal in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a lapsus
plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the
appellate courts. The important distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is
that the special civil action for certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals;
whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the SC are allowed would not subserve, but would subvert,
the intention of the Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court
are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule65. Consequently, all such petitions
should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
appropriate forum for the relief desired.
GARCIA VS. PAL
G.R. NO. 164856 JANUARY 20, 2009
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
FACTS:
This case stemmed from an administrative charge filed by PAL against employees, herein petitioners after allegedly being
caught in the act of sniffing shabu in the workplace. After due notice, PAL dismissed petitioners prompting the latter to file a
complaint for illegal dismissal which was resolved by the Labor Arbiter in their favor ordering inter alia their reinstatement.
Subsequently, respondent company was placed under corporate rehabilitation. From the Labor Arbiter, respondent appealed to
NLRC which reversed said decision. Later, a writ of execution as regards the reinstatement was issued by the Labor Arbiter.
Respondent then filed an urgent petition for injunction on the ground that it cannot comply with the reinstatement order due
to its corporate rehabilitation.
ISSUE:
1. Whether a subsequent finding of a valid dismissal by NLRC removes the basis for implementing the reinstatement aspect of
the Labor Arbiters decision?
2. Whether respondent company is justified in refusing to comply with such reinstatement order in view of its corporate
rehabilitation?
RULING:
1) NO.
2) NO
On the first issue, jurisprudential trend has maintained that even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed
on appeal, 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. The employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he may have
received for he is entitled to such. The opposite view is articulated in Genuino vs NLRC which states:
If the decision of the Labor Arbiter is later reversed on appeal upon the finding that the ground for dismissal is valid, then the
employer has the right to require the dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries he or she received
while the case was pending appeal, xxx.
Considering that Genuino was not reinstated to work or placed on payroll reinstatement, and her dismissal is based on a just
cause, then she is not entitled to be paid the salaries xxx.
However, the dearth of authority supporting Genuino renders inutile the rationale of reinstatement pending appeal. Pursuant
to police power, the State may authorize an immediate implementation, pending appeal of a decision reinstating a dismissed or
separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although temporarily since the appeal may be decided in favor of
the appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of the dismissed or separated employee and his
family. Thus, the Refund Doctrine easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor Arbiter could harm more than
help a dismissed employee. The employee, to make both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received
during the pendency of the appeal, only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision. The
provision of Art. 223 is clear that an award by the Labor Arbiter 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. The Court reaffirms such
prevailing principle that even if the order of reinstatement is reversed on appeal, 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.
After the labor arbiters decision is reversed by a higher court, the employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages if
it is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement was without fault of the employer. The test is two-fold: a) there must
be actual delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal and b) the
delay must not be due to the employers unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to employers unjustified refusal, the
employer may still be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the labor arbiters decision. In Genuino, the
former NLRC Rules of Procedure was still applied in which it did not lay down a mechanism to promptly effectuate the selfexecutory order of reinstatement, making it difficult to establish that the employer actually refused to comply. The new NLRC
Rules of Procedure which took effect on Jan. 7, 2006 now require the employer to submit a report of compliance within 10
calendar days from receipt of the labor arbiters decision. The employee need not file a motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution since the labor arbiter shall thereafter motu proprio issues the writ. It is settled that upon appointment by SEC of a
rehabilitation receiver, all actions for claims before any tribunal against the corporation shall ipso jure be suspended. Case law
recognizes that unless there is a restraining order, the implementation of the order of reinstatement is ministerial and
mandatory. The suspension of claims partakes of the nature of a restraining order that constitutes legal justification for
respondents non-compliance with the reinstatement order. Respondents failure to exercise the alternative options of actual
reinstatement and payroll reinstatement was thus justified. The petition is denied. The CA decision annulling the NLRC
resolutions affirming the validity of the Writ of Execution and Notice of Garnishment is affirmed
YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS, INC. VS. CA; G.R. NO. 126322; JANUARY 16, 2002; PARDO, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioner contended that a sheriff of the NLRC erroneously and unlawfully levied certain properties which it claims
as its own. It filed a 3rd party claim with the Labor Arbiter and recovery of property and damages with the RTC. The RTC
dismissed the case. In the CA, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of forum shopping and that the proper remedy
was appeal in due course, not certiorari or mandamus. Petitioner filed a MFR and argued that the filing of a complaint for
accion reinvindicatoria with the RTC was proper because it is a remedy specifically granted to an owner (whose properties were
subjected to a writ of execution to enforce a decision rendered in a labor dispute in which it was not a party). The MFR was
denied. Hence, petitioner filed this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether the CA has jurisdiction over the case?

RULING: YES
A third party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff to enforce a decision against a judgment debtor is
afforded with several alternative remedies to protect its interests. The third party may avail himself of alternative remedies
cumulatively, and one will not preclude the third party from availing himself of the other alternative remedies in the event he
failed in the remedy first availed of.

Thus, a third party may avail himself of the following alternative remedies:

a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of the Labor Arbiter, and
b) If the third party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the denial to the NLRC.

Even if a third party claim was denied, a third party may still file a proper action with a competent court to recover
ownership of the property illegally seized by the sheriff.
The filing of a third party claim with the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC did not preclude the petitioner from filing a subsequent
action for recovery of property and damages with the Regional Trial Court. And, the institution of such complaint will not make
petitioner guilty of forum shopping.