SECONDDIVISION

LUNESA O. LANSANGAN AND G.R.No.177026

ROCITACENDAA,
Petitioners, Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,Chairperson,
versus CORONA,*
CARPIOMORALES,
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY TINGA,and
PHILIPPINES,INC., BRION,JJ.
Respondent.
Promulgated:
January30,2009

xx

DECISION

CARPIOMORALES,J.:
AnanonymousemailwassenttotheGeneralManagerofAmkorTechnologyPhilippines
(respondent) detailing allegations of malfeasance on the part of its supervisory employees
[1]
Lunesa Lansangan and Rosita Cendaa (petitioners) for stealing company time. Respondent
thus investigated the matter, requiring petitioners to submit their written explanation. In
[2]
handwrittenletters,petitionersadmittedtheirwrongdoing. Respondentthereuponterminated
[3]
petitioners for extremely serious offenses as defined in its Code of Discipline, prompting
[4]
petitionerstofileacomplaintforillegaldismissalagainstit.

[5]
Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec, by Decision of October 20, 2004, dismissed
petitionerscomplaint,hehavingfoundthemguiltyof

[s]wiping another employees [sic] I.D. card or requesting another employee to swipe ones I.D.
card to gain personal advantage and/or in the interest of cheating, an offense of dishonesty
punishableasaseriousformofmisconductandfraudorbreachoftrustunderArticle282ofthe
LaborCode:

xxxx

which allows the dismissal of an employee for a valid cause. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)


The Arbiter, however, ordered the reinstatement of petitioners to their former positions
without backwages as a measure of equitable and compassionate relief owing mainly to
petitioners prior unblemished employment records, show of remorse, harshness of the penalty
[6]
anddefectiveattendancemonitoringsystemofrespondent.

Respondent assailed the reinstatement aspect of the Arbiters order before the National
LaborRelationsCommission(NLRC).

In the meantime, petitioners, without appealing the Arbiters finding them guilty of
dishonestyasaformofseriousmisconductandfraudorbreachoftrust,movedfortheissuance
[7]
ofawritofreinstatement.


[8]
After a series of oppositions, motions and orders, theArbiter issued an alias writ of
execution following which respondents bank account at EquitablePCI Bank was garnished.
Respondent thereupon moved for the quashal of the alias writ of execution and lifting of the
notice of garnishment, which the Arbiter denied by Order of January 26, 2005, drawing
respondenttoappealtotheNLRC.

AfterconsolidatingrespondentsappealfromtheLaborArbitersorderofreinstatementand
subsequent appeal/order denying the quashal of the alias writ of execution and lifting of the
[9]
notice of garnishment, the NLRC, by Resolution of June 30, 2005, granted respondents
appeals by deleting the reinstatement aspect of the Arbiters decision and setting aside the
Arbiters Alias Writ of Execution and Notice of Garnishment. Thus the NLRC disposed as
follows:

ACCORDINGLY,theappealisherebyGRANTED.TheLaborArbitersDecisiondated
October20,2004isherebyMODIFIEDbyDELETINGtheportionthatruledforappelle[e]s
reinstatement.Consequently,theWritofExecutiondatedNovember19,2004,thesubsequent
AliasWritofExecutiondatedJanuary26,2005,andtheNoticeofGarnishmentdatedJanuary
 14,2005serveduponEquitablePCIBankbySheriffAgripinaSangelareherebyorderedtobe
SETASIDE.

SOORDERED.(Underscoringsupplied)


PetitionersmotionforreconsiderationoftheNLRCResolutionhavingbeendenied,they
[10]
filedapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppealswhich,byDecision ofSeptember
19, 2006, while affirming the finding that petitioners were guilty of misconduct and the like,
orderedrespondenttopaypetitionerstheircorrespondingbackwages without qualification and
deductionfortheperiodcoveringOctober20,2004(dateoftheArbitersdecision)uptoJune30,
2005 (date of the NLRC Decision), citing Article 223 of the Labor Code and Roquero v.
[11]
PhilippineAirlines.

Bothpartiesfiledtheirrespectivemotionsforpartialreconsiderationwhichweredenied.
[12] [13]
OnlypetitionershavecometothisCourtviathepresentpetitionforreview, contending
that:

I

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE ORDER OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
LIMITINGTHEPAYMENTOFBACKWAGES[TO]THEPETITIONERSFROMOCTOBER
20, 2004 (ARBITER DECISION) UP TO JUNE 30, 2005 (NLRC DECISION) ONLY IS
CONTRARYTOTHECASEOFALEJANDROROQUEROVS.PHILIPPINEAIRLINES,INC.
[,]G.R.NO.152329,APRIL[22,]2003[AND]

II

. . . THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PETITIONERS COMMITTED SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT, FRAUD, DISHONESTY AND BREACH OF TRUST. BUT EVEN
ASSUMING THAT THE PETITIONERS COMMITTED THE SWIPING IN OF
IDENTIFICATIONCARD,THEPENALTYOFDISMISSALISTOOSEVERE,HARSHAND
CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 282 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
[14]
EXISTINGJURISPRUDENCE.


Sincerespondentdidnotappealfromtheappellatecourtsdecision,thesaidcourtsorder
forittopaybackwagestopetitionersforthethereinspecifiedperiodhasbecomefinal.

 [15]
Petitioners highlight the Courts ruling in Roquero v. Philippine Airlines where the
thereinemployerwasorderedtopaythewagestowhichthethereinemployeewasentitledfrom
[16]
thetimethereinstatementorderwasissueduntilthefinalityofthisCourtsdecision infavor
ofthethereinemployee.Thus,petitionerscontendthatthepaymentofbackwagesshouldnotbe
computedonlyuptothepromulgationbytheNLRCofitsdecision.

[17]
InitsComment, respondentassertsthat,interalia,petitionersrelianceonRoquerois
misplacedinviewoftheglaringfactualdifferencesbetweensaidcaseandthepresentcase.

Thepetitionfails.

The decision of the Arbiter finding that petitioners committed dishonesty as a form of
serious misconduct and fraud, or breach of trust had become final, petitioners not having
appealed the same before the NLRC as in fact they even moved for the execution of the
reinstatementaspectofthedecision.Itbearsrecallingthatitwasonlyrespondentwhichassailed
theArbitersdecisiontotheNLRCtosolelyquestiontheproprietyoftheorderforreinstatement,
anditsucceeded.

[18]
Roquero,aswellasArticle223 oftheLaborCodeonwhichtheappellatecourtalso
relied,findsnoapplicationinthepresentcase.Article223concernsitselfwithaninterimrelief,
granted to a dismissed or separated employee while the case for illegal dismissal is pending
appeal, as what happened in Roquero. It does not apply where there is no finding of illegal
dismissal,asinthepresentcase.

The Arbiter found petitioners dismissal to be valid. Such finding had, as stated earlier,
becomefinal,petitionersnothavingappealedit.FollowingArticle279whichprovides:

xxxx

In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employeeexceptforajustcauseorwhenauthorizedbythisTitle.Anemployeewhoisunjustly
dismissedfromworkshallbeentitledtoreinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandother
privilegesandtohisfullbackwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetaryequivalentcomputedfromthetimehiscompensationwaswithheldfromhimuptothe
timeofhisactualreinstatement(Emphasis,underscoringanditalicssupplied),


petitioners are not entitled to full backwages as their dismissal was not found to be illegal.
[19]
Agabonv.NLRC sostatespaymentofbackwagesandotherbenefitsisjustifiedonlyif the
employeewasunjustlydismissed.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.

Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:






LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson




RENATOC.CORONA DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice




CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

*AdditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.558datedJanuary15,2009inlieuofJusticePresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.whoisonleave.
[1]
CArollo,pp.419.
[2]
Id.at447449.
[3]
Id.at465466.
[4]
Rollo,p.26.
[5]
NLRCRecords,pp.312.
[6]
ThedispositiveportionoftheLaborArbitersDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebymadefindingaswithoutmerittheComplaintforillegaldismissalbut,asdiscussedabove,
the respondent company is ordered to reinstate the complainants to their last or substantially equivalent positions, without
backwagesandwithoutbenefits.
RespondentMikePetrucci,Presidentofrespondentcompany,isorderedstrickenoffaspartyrespondent,therebeingnoviable
causeofactionagainsthim.
OtherclaimsareDISMISSEDforutterlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.(Underscoringsupplied)
[7]
Rollo,pp.137.
[8]
AfterArbiterAmansecissuedawritofexecutiononNovember19,2004,respondentfiledamotiontoquashwritofexecutionon
November 24, 2004.By Order ofDecember 16, 2004, the Arbiter denied respondents motion to quash.Petitioners then filed a
motionfortheissuanceofanordertocomputetheaccumulatedsalariesofpetitionersonDecember28,2004.TheComputation
andExaminationUnitoftheNLRCcomputedtheaccumulatedsalariestobeP60,951.22forbothpetitioners.
[9]
Rollo,pp.287310.
[10]
Id.at5264.PennedbythenAssociateJustice(nowPresidingJustice)ConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.withAssociateJusticesMarianoC.
DelCastilloandMariflorPunzalanCastilloconcurring.
[11]
449Phil.437(2003).
[12]
Rollo,p.65.
[13]
Id.atpp.2351.
[14]
Id.at37.
[15]
Supranote11.
[16]
Rollo,p.41.
[17]
Id.at517552.
[18]
Article223.
xxxx
Inanyevent,thedecisionoftheLaborArbiterreinstatingadismissedorseparatedemployee,insofarasthereinstatement
aspectisconcerned,shallimmediatelybeexecutory,pendingappeal.Theemployeeshalleitherbeadmittedbacktoworkunderthe
sametermsandconditionsprevailingpriortohisdismissalorseparationor,attheoptionoftheemployer,merelyreinstatedinthe
payroll.Thepostingofabondbytheemployershallnotstaytheexecutionforreinstatementprovidedherein.
xxxx
[19]
G.R.No.158693,November17,2004,442SCRA573.