REINSTATEMENT, BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, AND MONETARY AWARDS

TERMINATION – BACKWAGES

[ G.R. No. 204971, April 10, 2019 ]

CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION-ASSOCIATES LABOR UNIONS
(CIO-ALU), PETITIONER, V. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE METROPOLITAN
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

Topic: Reinstatement, Separation Pay, Backwages and Monetary Awards

Doctrine: In order to afford full satisfaction of the judgment from the levied property, an
execution sale must be conducted, and the proceeds therefrom be used to satisfy the judgment
debt. Therefore, a money judgment is satisfied only upon payment of the judgment award or the
issuance of a certificate of sale in favor of the judgment creditor after the conduct of an
execution sale.

Facts:

Congress of Independent Organizations-Associated Labor Unions (CIO-ALU)3 is a legitimate

labor organization which represents the workers in San Carlos Milling Company, Inc. (SCMCI).
CIO-ALU is among the complainants in three (3) cases4 against SCMCI for unpaid wage
increases, 13th month pay, differential pay, holiday pay, and separation pay. All three cases were
eventually decided in favor of the SCMCI workers. The controversy before the Court arose
during the consolidated proceedings for the execution of the aforesaid judgments. It all started
from the Notice of Levy dated February 9, 2006 issued by Sheriff Enrique Y. Paredes (Sheriff
Paredes), advising the authorized representative or agents of SCMCI that he has to attach
properties found inside the premises of SCMCI including all accessories and other scrap
materials found inside the premises.

Thereafter, Sheriff Paredes issued a "Notice of Sale on Execution of Some Properties" mentioned
in the Notice of Levy. The notice indicates that the auction sale has to be conducted on February
21, 2006.6

Issues

Whether or not further levies may be made on the properties located at the SCMCI's premises.

Ruling:

The petition should be dismissed.

Acompleted levy does not automatically mean that the judgment has already been satisfied. It
has been held that mere levy on property of sufficient value to cover the judgment award does
not operate as a satisfaction of the judgment, but merely as a prima facie evidence or a
presumption of satisfaction. Under the Rules of Court, which applies suppletorily to the NLRC
Execution Manual, a levy only creates a lien over the property in favor of the judgment
obligee. In order to afford full satisfaction of the judgment from the levied property, an execution
sale must be conducted, and the proceeds therefrom be used to satisfy the judgment
debt. Therefore, a money judgment is satisfied only upon payment of the judgment award65 or
the issuance of a certificate of sale in favor of the judgment creditor after the conduct of an
execution sale.

16 G.R. No. 236271, April 03, 2019

RO-ANN VETERINARY MANUFACTURING INC., RONILO DELA CRUZ AND
RAFAELITO LAGAT, JR., PETITIONERS, v. FERNANDO A. BINGBING, AND
GILBERT C. VILLASEÑOR, RESPONDENTS.

Topic: Reinstatement, Separation Pay, Backwages and Monetary Awards

Doctrine: Although the CA may review decisions or resolutions of the NLRC on jurisdictional
issues, the same does not interfere with them becoming final and executory. The Court further
emphasized that the only exception to said rule is when the execution is restrained by the proper
court.

Facts:

Fernando A. Bingbing and Gilbert C. Villaseñor (respondents) were employed by Ro-Ann

Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. (petitioner corporation) as technical sales representatives.
Respondent Bingbing was hired in 2013 through petitioner Rafaelito Lagat, Jr. (petitioner Lagat),
petitioner corporation's Sales Team Leader in the Bicol region who does business under the name
and style "RJ2L Enterprise." Similarly, respondent Villaseñor was employed by the petitioner
corporation as early as 2008. As sales representatives, respondents were tasked with the sale and
delivery of veterinary products, along with the collection of payments from customers and the
remittance of the same to the petitioner corporation.

Sometime around March 1, 2014, respondents were told by a number of their clients that
respondent corporation released an advisory informing them that the two were no longer
connected with the company. Respondents immediately contacted petitioner Lagat, their team
leader, who admitted and confirmed that he sent the subject advisories upon instruction of
petitioner corporation.

Petitioners contend that respondents were involved in unexplained withdrawals of items from the
company amounting to a sum of P84,521.57. Respondents, on the other hand, argued that when
petitioner Lagat confirmed the text, the same operated as an express termination of their
employment with petitioner corporation. They argued that said termination was illegal and
without basis.

Thereafter, respondents submitted their grievance to the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), in accordance with the Department's Single Entry Approach, hoping to reach a
settlement, but to no avail. Thus, on October 1, 2014, respondents filed with the NLRC
Arbitration Branch their respective complaints12 against herein petitioners for illegal dismissal,
non-payment of salaries, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, separation pay, and claims
for damages and attorney's fees.

Issue: Whether the payment of the judgment award by reason of the enforcement of the writ of
execution issued by the LA should have no effect on the petition for certiorari filed before the
CA.

Ruling:

Verily, in the case at bar, it is obvious that petitioners did not voluntarily pay or settle
respondents' monetary claims. As culled from the records, the full satisfaction of the judgment
award came about due to the enforcement of the LA's Writ of Execution50 dated August 8, 2016,
By virtue of said enforcement, the Cash Bond51 posted by petitioners with the NLRC was
executed against and the latter's account with Metrobank in Alaminos City, Pangasinan was
garnished.52 Thus, as correctly argued by petitioners, since the full satisfaction of respondents'
judgment award was done in strict compliance with a duly issued writ of execution, the same
cannot be taken as a voluntary settlement of the monetary claims.

Furthermore, contrary to respondents' contentions, there is no showing that petitioners

voluntarily agreed to the termination of the mediation proceedings before the CA.53 A look at
the Mediator's Report of the CA's PMC unit would show that the mediation process had been
terminated for "other reasons." The reason specified was, "Pls. Take note of confirmation at the
bottom of the attached ex-parte manifestation."54 Upon checking the subject ex-parte
manifestation, it contained a hand-written note signed by Atty. Ancheta, Jr., petitioners' counsel,
stating, "Confirming execution of the monetary award by the SRAB of NLRC pending appeal of
the case with the Court of Appeals."55

Certainly, the confirmation which the mediator used as basis for the termination of the mediation
process was a mere attestation to the fact that the judgment award had been executed. Thus, the
same should not have been taken as an indication that petitioners had voluntarily agreed to the
withdrawal of their petition for certiorari. This finding is bolstered even more so by the Motion
for Reconsideration56 filed by petitioners wherein they categorically declared that they did not
voluntarily pay or settle the monetary awards claimed by respondents.57

In summary, it is clear that petitioners did not consent to the withdrawal of their petition.
Likewise, clear is the finding that there was no voluntary settlement of private respondent's
judgment award for the same was merely done in compliance with a duly issued writ of
execution. These, coupled with the rule that a petition for certiorari is an action which is not a
part or a continuation of the proceedings which resulted in the judgment complained of, reveal
that the CA committed a palpable mistake when it considered the petition as withdrawn for being
moot and academic.58
G.R. No. 234446, July 24, 2019
VICTORIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION,
PETITIONER, v. VICTORIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

Topic: REINSTATEMENT, SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES AND MONETARY

AWARDS
Doctrine:
Like courts, administrative boards and officers vested with quasi-judicial power may only
exercise jurisdiction over matters that their enabling statutes confer in them. This rule applies
even though the parties hold out to the administrative agency concerned that it has jurisdiction
over a particular dispute. Generally, lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and is a
defense that cannot be lost. However, by way of narrow exception, the doctrine of estoppel by
laches, which rests on considerations of public policy, may effectively bar jurisdictional
challenges. But it must be emphasized that the doctrine finds application only where the
jurisdictional issue is so belatedly raised that it may be presumed o have been waived by the
invoking party.
Facts:
VMC is a domestic corporation engaged in the textile business. On the other hand, VMCEU is
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the permanent and regular rank-and-file employees
within the pertinent bargaining unit of VMC.
Through a letter dated March 14, 2014, VMC sought the opinion of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) on the tax implications of the wage structure that was stipulated in the collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) between the company and VMCEU. At the time, the applicable
minimum wage was P466.00, broken down into a basic wage of P451.00 and a cost of living
allowance (COLA) of P15.00, as mandated by Wage Order No. NCR-18. This was different
from the company's wage structure, which integrated the COLA it to the total wage it paid
VMCEU's members.
In response to VCM's letter, the BIR opined that VMCEU's members were not exempt from
income tax, as what they were earning was above the statutory minimum wage mandated by
Wage Order No. NCR-18.8

As a result, VMC withheld the income tax due on the wages of VMCEU's members.

On May 8, 2015, VMC and VMCEU held a grievance meeting to settle various issues, including
the company's decision to withhold income tax from the wages of the union members who were
earning the statutory minimum wage. Unfortunately, the parties failed to resolve the issue.9
After failing to reach an amicable settlement before the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board, VMC and VMCEU executed a Submission Agreement,10 designating AVA Renato Q.
Bello to resolve whether the company properly withheld the income tax due from the union's
members, among other issues.

After VMC and VMCEU submitted their respective position papers and replies, the case was
submitted for decision.
Issue
Whether or not the CA correctly set aside the VA's decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
Ruling
The seminal ponencia in El Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca instructs that a court, in order to
validly try a civil case, must be possessed of two types of jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction over the
subject matter; and (2) jurisdiction over the parties. Relevant to the resolution of the issue raised
in this case is the first, which, broadly defined, is "the power to hear and determine the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong" or, in the words of Palanca, "the authority of
the court to entertain a particular kind of action or to administer a particular kind of relief."
The above principles apply analogously to administrative boards and officers exercising quasi-
judicial power, such as VAs constituted under the Labor Code.
Relevantly, the Labor Code vests in VAs the power to hear and decide labor disputes, viz.:
Art. 261. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. The Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies x x x.
Art. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes
including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks.
[ GR No. 209072, Jul 24, 2019 ]
ARLENE A. CUARTOCRUZ v. ACTIVE WORKS

Topic: Dismissal of Employee; Reinstatement, Monetary Awards

Doctrine: Unexpired portion of the contract should be paid to an illegally dismissed OFW. The
three-month cap has already been declared unconstitutional.

Facts:

On June 4, 2007, Arlene A. Cuartocruz (petitioner) and Cheng Chi Ho, a Hong Kong national,
entered into a contract of employment whereby petitioner shall work as the latter's domestic
helper for a period of two years. Respondent Active Works, Inc. (AWI), a Philippine corporation
engaged in the recruitment of domestic helpers in Hong Kong, is petitioner's agency, and
respondent Ma. Isabel Hermosa is its Branch Manager.

On August 3, 2007, petitioner arrived in Hong Kong. On August 11, 2007, petitioner received a
warning letter from her employer, stating that she is required to improve her attentiveness in
performing her work within one month, failing which the letter shall serve as a written notice of
the termination of her employment contract effective September 11, 2007.

However, in a letter dated August 16, 2007, Cheng Chi Ho informed the Immigration
Department of Wangchai, Hong Kong that he is terminating the contract with petitioner effective
immediately for the following reasons: "disobey order (sic), unmatch the contract which she
submit before (sic), [and] refuse to care my baby (sic)."

Petitioner filed a case against her employer before the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication
Board, but it was eventually dismissed and petitioner was repatriated at the instance of AWI.
Petitioner alleged that while in Manila, AWI offered her P15,000.00 as a settlement fee but she
declined it, believing that she is entitled to a higher amount.

Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal dismissal,
payment of unpaid salaries and salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract of
employment, reimbursement of placement fee and other fees incident to petitioner's deployment
to Hong Kong, and moral and exemplary damages. Petitioner denied committing the acts
imputed to her by Cheng Chi Ho, and claimed that those were baseless and fabricated. Further, at
no time was her attention called with respect to those acts that she allegedly committed.

Issues:
Whether the employee can be validly dismissed for disobeying the employer even if the latter
failed to present particular instances if such disobedience.

Whether the employee can be dismissed for representing that she was single parent and there is
no showing that it affected her work as a domestic helper.

Whether the foreign employer and the recruitment or placement agency are jointly liable for
money claims arising from the employment relationship or contract involving overseas Filipino
workers.
Whether the OFW is illegally dismissed is entitled to unexpired portion of employment contract.

Ruling:
1. Here, no evidence was presented to substantiate the employer's accusations. There was no
showing of particular instances when petitioner supposedly disobeyed her employer and refused
to take care of his baby.

2. With respect to petitioner's alleged misrepresentation that she was single when in fact she was
a single parent, there is also no showing how this affected her work as a domestic helper. In fact,
being a mother herself puts petitioner in a better position to care for her employer's child. Where
there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law
considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.

3. Respondents cannot escape liability from petitioner's money claims. Section 10 of RA 8042
provides that the employer and the recruitment or placement agency are jointly liable for money
claims arising from the employment relationship or any contract involving overseas Filipino
workers. If the recruitment or placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and
directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarity liable with
the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages. In providing for the joint
and solidary liability of private recruitment agencies with their foreign principals, RA 8042
precisely affords OFWs with a recourse and assures them of immediate and sufficient payment
of what is due them.

4. Finally, as regards the issue of how much salary petitioner is entitled based on the unexpired
portion of her contract, the NLRC awarded petitioner six-months' salary while the CA reduced
this amount to three months, pursuant to Section 10, RA 8042, which provides:

Sec. 10. Money Claims. – x x x

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined
by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee
with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less. x x x x
The proviso "for three months for every year of the unexpired term [of the employment
contract], whichever is less" has been declared unconstitutional by this Court for violating the
equal protection clause and substantive due process. In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc
we explained that the said clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of
the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a three-
month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their
contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment.
The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar
disadvantage. Moreover, there is no compelling state interest that the subject clause may possibly
serve.

Thus, following Serrano, we rule that petitioner is entitled to her monthly salary of

HK$3,400.00, or its Philippine peso equivalent, for the entire unexpired portion of her
employment contract.
 COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner
vs.
ANTONIO P. MAGNO, JR. and MELCHOR L. OCAMPO, JR., Respondents
GR No. 212520, July 3, 2019

DOCTRINE:

An order for reinstatement entitles an employee to receive his accrued backwages from the
moment the reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a
higher court without fear of refunding what he had received. The start of the computation of the
backwages should be on the day following the last day when the dismissed employee was paid
backwages, and end on the date that a higher court reversed the LA’s ruling of illegal dismissal.
The date of reversal should be the end date, and not the date of the ultimate finality of such
reversal.

FACTS:

Ocampo was hired by Coca-Cola in 1988. During the course of his employment he was rewarded
with promotions and incentives until he reached the position of District Sales Supervisor. On the
other hand, Magno was employed on 15 December 1988. His last position was as Territory Sales
Manager. In 2007, complainants-appellees were meted a suspension for one month because of
the charge that two (2) hauler trucks whose operation is under Ocampo’ s district and Magno’ s
territory, were found to be distributing soon-to-expire products in Manila, which is outside of his
dealership area.

Coca-cola claimed that Magno and Ocampo who were charged with engaging in fictitious sales
transactions and violation of the “no encroachment” policy; were placed on preventive
suspension and dismissed from service in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10 and 12,
Rule 005-85 of the CCBPI Rules in relation to Article 282 of the Labor Code on loss of trust and
confidence.

Magno and Ocampo used the facilities of Cabanatuan Sales Office to buy company products at
discounted rates, only to dispose them outside their territory. Coca-cola served a Notice to
Explain and Preventive Suspension to Magno and Ocampo in 2007. They were terminated in
2008.

Administrative hearings were conducted, wherein both of them did not appear. They were
terminated in 2008. Magno and Ocampo filed a complaint for illegal suspension and money
claims before the Labor Arbiter. Labor Arbiter declared Coca-cola guilty of illegally suspending
and dismissing Magno and Ocampo and ordered payment of salaries and benefits for the one
month suspension. The LA also ordered reinstatement, as well as payment to both Magno and
Ocampo of their respective backwages, transportation benefits, cellphone benefits, incremental
increase, and annual incentive pay. The LA also awarded payment of moral damages, exemplary
damages, and attorney’s fees. Coca-cola appealed before the NLRC. NLRC ruled that Magno
and Ocampo were legally dismissed, but their suspension was illegal. However, it ordered that
Magno and Ocampo are entitled to the salaries or wages plus all other benefits to which they
should have been normally entitled to had they been immediately reinstated, either actual or in
the payroll. CA affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Magno and Ocampo are entitled to their accrued basic pay and other benefits.

RULING:

YES. Article 29472 of the Labor Code further provides: “x x x An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits
or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him
up to the time of his actual reinstatement.” Our jurisprudence has been consistent as to what
should constitute accrued backwages. “the base figure to be used in the computation of
backwages due to the employee should include not just the basic salary, but also the regular
allowances that he had been receiving, such as the emergency living allowances and the 13 th
month pay mandated under the law.”

An order for reinstatement entitles an employee to receive his accrued backwages from the
moment the reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a
higher court without fear of refunding what he had received. The start of the computation of the
backwages should be on the day following the last day when the dismissed employee was paid
backwages, and end on the date that a higher court reversed the LA’s ruling of illegal dismissal.
The date of reversal should be the end date, and not the date of the ultimate finality of such
reversal.
REINSTATEMENT, BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, AND MONETARY AWARDS

DOCTRINE:

Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (l) month
for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative.

July 10, 2019

G.R. No. 193136

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, Petitioner

vs.
HONORATO C. HILARIO, substituted by GLORIA Z. HILARIO, and DINDO B.
BANTING, Respondents

Facts:

On March 6, 1995, respondent Honorato was hired by CCI as Designer. Without Ty to

manage and lead CCI, and considering that CCI was not generating revenue but was merely
"breaking even", the Board of Directors of CCI decided to close the company. Respondents filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal and other unpaid benefits against CCI and petitioner
.Respondents claimed that the closure of CCI was not due to any of the authorized causes
provided by law but was done in bad faith for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of the
Labor Code, as CCI was still conducting operations under the guise of DWVEI.

Issue:

Whether the respondent is entitled of separation pay.

Ruling:

Yes. Having ruled that respondents' termination as illegal, here, separation pay is granted
because reinstatement is no longer advisable and a long time has lapsed, particularly sixteen (16)
years, since the dismissal of respondents. In fact, it should be noted that respondent Hilario died
on September 2, 2015 during the pendency of this appeal and was substituted by his heirs,
namely his wife Gloria Hilario and his children. Under the foregoing circumstances, the payment
of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement since the latter option is
no longer desirable or viable.
REINSTATEMENT, SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES AND MONETARY AWARDS

CONDITIONAL SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

July 30, 2019

G.R. No. 191902

MARINO B. DAANG, Petitioner vs. SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC. and

COMMERCIAL S.A., Respondents

Doctrine:A conditional settlement of a judgment award which is highly prejudicial to the

employee will be treated as a voluntary settlement of his/her claim that operates as a final
satisfaction inhis/her favor, rendering a case questioning the award moot and academic.

FACTS:

Petitioner Marino B. Daang filed a complaint against respondents Skippers United Pacific Inc.
and Commercial S.A. for total and permanent disability benefits and damages.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) which affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA) ordering respondents to pay
petitioner the amount of US$60,000 for total and permanent disability. Respondents filed a
petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Pending resolution of the petition before the Supreme Court, petitioner filed an urgent
manifestation with motion to dismiss, alleging that on March 10, 2009, the parties jointly
executed and filed with the NLRC a conditional satisfaction of judgment with urgent motion to
cancel appeal bond all without prejudice to the pending petition for certiorari in the Court of
Appeals.

Respondents maintained that the conditional satisfaction of judgment should not be taken against
them because it was the only protection available to them to prevent the execution proceedings
before the NLRC.

ISSUE:WON respondent’s argument find merit

Respondents' petition before the CA became moot and academic. The terms of the Conditional
Satisfaction of Judgment and the Affidavit, not unlike those considered by this Court
in Hernandez, are highly unfair and prejudicial against him.

The payment of judgment award includes among others,future expenses and claims. Daang
would not only be obliged to return all settlement money he received in the event that the CA
reverses the NLRC, by his waiver of his claims and right to prosecute any further action, he also
gave up any legal recourse which would otherwise have been available to him. Clearly, Daang is
on the losing end.
REINSTATEMENT, BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, AND MONETARY AWARDS

DOCTRINE:

Jurisprudence provides that in cases where the dismissals are for a just cause but are
procedurally infirm, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it
illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for violation of his
statutory rights.

G.R. No. 242875, August 28, 2019

AUGORIO A. DELA ROSA, PETITIONER, v. ABS-CBN CORPORATION,

RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

In 2002, petitioner was hired by respondent ABS-CBN Corporation (respondent), as a

video editor for the latter's television broadcasting at an hourly rate of P230.00. He was allegedly
rehired repeatedly and continuously for the same position, under purported fixed-term contracts.
In 2013, petitioner admittedly reported for work and went to respondent's editing bay while
intoxicated. This led to an incident where petitioner placed his hands inside a female co-worker's
pants and touched her buttocks. On September 1, 2015, respondent served a memorandum to
petitioner informing him of management's decision to "impose on [him] the penalty of
dismissal." However, respondent claimed that it can no longer effect the same, since petitioner's
program contract dated August 16, 2013 had already expired on December 31, 2013, and his
"current program contract dated March 16, 2015 to September 15, 2015 no longer covers the
incident.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner is entitled of damages for lack of statutory due process.

RULING:

Yes. Jurisprudence provides that in cases where the dismissals are for a just cause but are
procedurally infirm, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it
illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for violation of his
statutory rights. The rationale is that the employer should not be compelled to continue
employing a person who is admittedly guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance and whose
continued employment is patently inimical to the employer, as in this case. Respondent is
ordered to pay nominal damages in the amount of P30, 000.00, in line with existing
jurisprudence, for violating petitioner's right to procedural due process.
 QUITCLAIMS AND WAIVER

SKYWAY O & M CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. WILFREDO M. REINANTE,

RESPONDENT
GR No. 222233, August 28, 2019

DOCTRINE:

Though not on the same plane as that of a permanent employee, a probationary employee enjoys
security of tenure. The services of a probationary employee may be terminated for any of the
following: (1) a just cause; (2) an authorized cause; and (3) failure to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with the reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.

It must be stressed that the employee's waiver or quitclaim cannot prevent the employee from
demanding benefits to which he or she is entitled, and from filing an illegal dismissal case.
Waivers or quitclaims are looked upon with disfavor, and are frowned upon for being contrary to
public policy. Unless it can be shown that the person executing the waiver voluntarily did so,
with full understanding of its contents, and with reasonable and credible consideration, the same
is not a valid and binding undertaking. The burden is with the employer to prove that the waiver
or quitclaim was voluntarily executed.

FACTS:

Petitioner Skyway O & M Corporation (Skyway) hired Wilfredo as Intelligence Officer for a
fixed period of 5 months. Thereafter, Skyway renewed his services and appointed him as a
probationary employee. Wilfredo took a vacation leave and filed an application for sick leave
upon the advice of his physician due to hypertension. However, Skyway disapproved his
application for vacation leave and directed him to report for work to discuss his on-the-job
performance and continued absence without proper authority.

On May 21, 2009, Wilfredo received a pre-termination notice for supposedly failing to meet the
pre-performance standards of the company based on the Performance Appraisal Report. On his
last day as probationary employee, Wilfredo was dismissed. Based on the termination letter, his
performance during the probationary period starting November 26, 2008 to April 2009 was
below average.

Meanwhile, Wilfredo filed administrative complaints against Augusto, assailing the latter's
authority to assess his performance, as well as against Skyway for hiring and promoting
unqualified security officers. The parties eventually entered into a compromise
agreement/amicable settlement wherein Wilfredo agreed not to file any case against Skyway and
to withdraw the administrative cases he had filed against its security officers. Notwithstanding
demand, TSMSD failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement
prompting Wilfredo to file a complaint for constructive dismissal, non-payment of service
incentive leave, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Wilfredo. NLRC affirmed. CA also affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Wilfredo was illegally dismissed.

RULING:

YES. LA, NLRC and the CA uniformly found that Wilfredo was illegally dismissed. Factual
findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are
accorded respect and even finality by this Court, more so when they coincide with those of the
LA. Such factual findings are given more weight when affirmed by the CA.

A probationary employee is one who is placed on trial by an employer, during which the latter
determines whether or not the former is qualified for permanent employment. The essence of a
probationary period of employment lies primordially in the purpose and objective of both the
employer and employee during such period. Though not on the same plane as that of a
permanent employee, a probationary employee enjoys security of tenure. The services of a
probationary employee may be terminated for any of the following: (1) a just cause; (2) an
authorized cause; and (3) failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the
reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.

Further, It must be stressed that the employee's waiver or quitclaim cannot prevent the employee
from demanding benefits to which he or she is entitled, and from filing an illegal dismissal case.
Waivers or quitclaims are looked upon with disfavor, and are frowned upon for being contrary to
public policy. Unless it can be shown that the person executing the waiver voluntarily did so,
with full understanding of its contents, and with reasonable and credible consideration, the same
is not a valid and binding undertaking. The burden is with the employer to prove that the waiver
or quitclaim was voluntarily executed.
 REINSTATEMENT, BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, AND MONETARY
AWARDS

DOCTRINE:

Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an
acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable.

G.R. No. 228231 [Formerly UDK 15531], August 28, 2019

PRUDENCIO CLEMENTE, JR., PETITIONER, v. ESO-NICE TRANSPORT

CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

Sometime in August 1998, ESO-Nice Transport Corporation (respondent) hired petitioner

as bus dispatcher in its Baguio branch. When its Baguio branch operations was audited in August
2013, respondent found out that numerous collections were not deposited in its bank account,
hence he was dismissed. Petitioner insisted that he was illegally dismissed. The CA found the
penalty of dismissal imposed by the respondent upon the petitioner to be not commensurate to
the offense committed. Thus, it ordered petitioner's reinstatement to his former position without
loss of seniority rights, but without backwages or other monetary benefits. Petitioner averred that
the CA erred when it ordered his reinstatement to his previous post, but without right to
backwages. According to petitioner, his reinstatement is no longer possible in view of their
strained relations which was brought about by the filing of a criminal complaint against him by
the respondent, and his filing of a case for illegal dismissal against the latter.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner is entitled with separation pay.

Ruling:

Yes. Given that the petitioner was dismissed without just cause and without due process,
he is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement under Article 294 of the Labor Code. However, considering the strained
relationship now existing between the parties, the grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
is justified. Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered
an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable.
 REINSTATEMENT, BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, AND MONETARY
AWARDS

DOCTRINE:

Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1)
month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. The payment of
separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.

G.R. No. 204782, September 18, 2019

GENUINO AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v.

ARMANDO G. ROMANO, JAY A. CABRERA AND MOISES V. SARMIENTO,

Facts:

On August 3, 2005, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for
separation pay against Genuino Ice and Vicar before the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE). Due to the continuous and tremendous decline in the demand for ice products being
produced by the petitioner, it shut down its block ice production plant facilities. Among those
affected were the respondents who were relieved from their posts by Vicar and L.C Moreno. The
Labor Arbiter still found respondents' dismissal from employment as illegal inasmuch as the
petitioner failed to adduce any evidence showing that the closure of its block ice production
facility had some basis and that their dismissal was for an authorized cause. The NLRC rendered
its Decision finding that the Labor Arbiter did not err in holding the petitioner and Vicar guilty
of illegal dismissal CA finding the petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal.

ISSUE:

Whether respondents are entitled to backwages and separation pay.

Ruling:
Yes. Since respondents' termination was illegal, they are entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and to their full backwages pursuant to the said article. The normal
consequences of respondents' illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights, and payment of backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the
date of actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay
equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative.
The payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.
 REINSTATEMENT, SEPARATION PAY, OR BACKWAGES AND MONETARY
AWARDS

Doctrine:

In cases where the parties failed to prove the presence of either dismissal of the employee or
abandonment of his work, the remedy is to reinstate such employee without payment of
backwages.

G.R. No. 240254

RODESSA QUITEVIS RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner

vs.
SINTRON SYSTEMS, INC. AND/OR JOSELITO CAPAQUE, Respondents

Facts: Petitioner Rodessa Rodriguez (Rodriguez) works at Sintron Systems, Inc. (SSI) as Sales
Coordinator since July 4, 2001. Rodriguez filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal,
and monetary claims as she was allegedly forced to go on absences in order to avoid the abusive
words of Capaque, for which she filed requests for leave.

SSI negated the claims of Ms. Rodriguez and offered in evidence affidavits of employees who
claimed that there was no shouting that took place during the meeting where allegedly, Capaque
humiliated Rodriguez and shouted at her vindictive words. That it was Rodriguez who was tardy,
inefficient and disrespectful to clients. As to her absenteeism, SSI denied having received
requests for leave from Rodriguez for her absence on November 19 and 20, 2013.  As to her
succeeding leaves, her request therefor was denied by SSI in a letter dated December 2, 2013.
Hence, in an SSI memorandum, Rodriguez was warned that her continued absence may be
ground for termination and required her to respond to the memorandum, else her termination
would be reported to the DOLE.

ISSUE:

Whether Reinstatement, Separation Pay, or backwages are the proper remedies to be

afforded to Rodriguez.

RULING:

No. In cases where the parties failed to prove the presence of either dismissal of the employee or
abandonment of his work, the remedy is to reinstate such employee without payment of
backwages.

The Court however clarified that "reinstatement," as used in such cases, is merely an affirmation
that the employee may return to work as he was not dismissed in the first place. It should not be
confused with reinstatement as a relief proceeding from illegal dismissal as provided under
Article 279 of the Labor Code. The aforequoted provision restores the employee who was
unjustly dismissed to the position from which he was removed, that is, to his status quo ante
dismissal.

In the present case, considering that there has been no dismissal at all, there can be no
reinstatement as one cannot be reinstated to a position he is still holding. Instead, the Court
merely declares that the employee may go back to his work and the employer must then accept
him because the employment relationship between them was never actually severed.

Moreover, as there can be no reinstatement in the technical sense of Article 279, the doctrine of
strained relations likewise has no application. This doctrine only arises when there is an order
for reinstatement that is no longer feasible. It cannot be invoked by the employer to prevent the
employee's return to work nor by the employee to justify payment of separation pay. As
discussed, there having been no abandonment nor dismissal, the employee-employer relationship
between the parties subsists. Hence, there is no need for reinstatement.

Consequently, there can be no payment of separation pay. Separation pay is generally not
awarded to an employee whose employment was not terminated. As to the prayer for payment of
backwages, the same must likewise be denied because there was no dismissal.

This being the case, SSI must be ordered to reinstate Rodriguez to her former position without
payment of backwages. If Rodriguez voluntarily chooses not to return to work, she must then be
considered as having resigned from employment. This is, however, without prejudice to the
parties willingly continuing with their former contract of employment or entering into a new one.

Topic:

Quitclaims and waivers

Doctrine:

Quitclaims are contracts in the nature of a compromise where parties make concessions, a lawful
device to avoid litigation. It is a valid and binding agreement between the parties, provided that it
constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement and the one accomplishing it has done so
voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import.
G.R. No. 236496

F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC., Petitioner vs. JOSE B. GALANDEZ, DOMINGO I. SAJUELA,
and MARLON D. NAMOC, Respondents

FACTS: THE National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s
(LA’s) ruling finding respondents Jose B. Galandez, Domingo I. Sajuela and Marlon D. Namoc
to have been illegally dismissed, and as such are entitled to reinstatement with backwages.
Subsequently, respondents sought to enforce the NLRC decision demanding petitioner F.F. Cruz
& Co. Inc. to reinstate them and to pay their full backwages.

On March 23, 2013, petitioner undertook to settle and pay respondents their adjudged monetary
award in the total aggregate amount of P363,047.68, for which the latter executed a quitclaim
and release in consideration thereof before a Notary Public. In an order dated April 30, 2013, the
NLRC approved the subject quitclaim and accordingly declared the case closed and terminated.

The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the NLRC order and partly ruled that the quitclaim did not
include a waiver of respondents’ right to reinstatement or separation pay given that the latter had
repeatedly demanded for their reinstatement after its execution.

ISSUE: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling: Yes.

Quitclaims are contracts in the nature of a compromise where parties make concessions, a lawful
device to avoid litigation. It is a valid and binding agreement between the parties, provided that it
constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement and the one accomplishing it has done so
voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import. While quitclaims are generally intended
for the purpose of preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit, jurisprudence nonetheless holds that
the parties are not precluded from entering into a compromise even if a final judgment had
already been rendered.

Quitclaims and waivers should be carefully examined and strictly scrutinized with regard not
only to the words and terms used, but also to the factual circumstances under which they have
been executed. In determining the intention of parties to a contract, their contemporaneous and
subsequent acts shall be principally considered. Here, other than the petitioner’s bare assertion,
there is no showing that respondents intended to freely and voluntarily waive their right to
reinstatement under the said quitclaim. In fact, respondents had consistently averred that the
aforementioned quitclaims were executed with the assurance that petitioner would reinstate them
as decreed in the NLRC’s final judgment.

Indeed, the consideration, therefore, for respondents in acceding to the Quitclaim and Release
was to realize the expeditious settlement of petitioner’s monetary obligations (13th month pay,
backwages and attorney’s fees), without, however, compromising their right to get back their
jobs and continue to earn a living in petitioner’s employ.

This is the evident intent of the parties as may be gathered from their contemporaneous and
subsequent acts. To hold otherwise—that is, to construe the Quitclaim and Release as a complete
discharge of petitioner’s obligations to respondents would not only be illogical, it would also
prevent the labor quitclaim from being a fair and reasonable agreement between the parties as
required by law.

In fine, The Court ruled that the Quitclaim and Release remains valid; however, it should be
interpreted as a fair and reasonable settlement between the parties only of the monetary aspect of
the NLRC Decision, but not of its reinstatement aspect. Hence, NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in completely relieving petitioner from all of its obligations (both in its monetary and
reinstatement aspects) under its final and executory decision.
G.R. No. 234296, November 27, 2019

ERNESTO P. GUTIERREZ v. NAWRAS MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., AL-

ADHAMAIN CO. LTD., AND ELIZABETH BAWA, RESPONDENTS.

TOPIC: REINSTATEMENT, SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES AND MONETARY

AWARDS

DOCTRINE: In Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, this Court struck down
the phrase "or for three (3) months for every qyear of the unexpired term, whichever is
less"23  under Section 7 of R.A. 10022 because the same phrase was already declared
unconstitutional in R.A. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.  

FACTS: Guttierez was hired by NAWRAS Manpower Services, Inc. (NAWRAS) to work as
Al Adhamain Co. Ltd.'s (Al-Adhamain) "driver vehicle road" in Saudi Arabia for two years. In a
meeting with Al-Adhamain's owner, Guttierez was told that his contract would be terminated,
and he would be repatriated as soon as Guttierez completes his clearance. On March 15, 2014,
Guttierez was given his remaining salary) and a refund of his two months' salary bond. He was
then told to book his own flight back to the Philippines and that he would be reimbursed later.
However, of the SR3,100.00 that he spent for the airfare, Al-Adhamain's owner only reimbursed
him for SR2,000.00.7

Upon repatriation, Guttierez filed a complaint for actual illegal dismissal with claims for
underpaid overtime pay, unpaid salaries, and transportation expenses, termination pay, damages,
and attorney's fees against respondents.

The CA affirmed the tribunal's finding of illegal dismissal. However, it modified Guttierez's
monetary awards in order to conform to paragraph 5, Section 7 of Republic Act No. (R.A.)
10022. Thus, the appellate court affirmed Guttierez's entitlement to a refund of his placement fee
with 12% annual legal interest but reduced the amount of his remaining salary to SR13,800. It
also deleted Guttierez's award of SR1,100.00 representing the excess airfare for Guttierez's
repatriation. The CA ruled that Guttierez only presented his e-ticket, which did not indicate the
amount Guttierez paid. Attorney's fees were likewise deleted due to the LA's failure to explain
the factual circumstances warranting such award.

ISSUE: Whether Guttierez is entitled to "his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract

RULING: Yes. Guttierez is, entitled to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract

In Sameer, this Court struck down the phrase "or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less" under Section 7 of R.A. 10022 because the same phrase was
already declared unconstitutional in R.A. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995. Guttierez is, thus, entitled to "his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract" - the operative clause of Section 7. As such, the LA's computation of
SR40,250.00 shall be reinstated.
Respondents failed to present any proof to substantiate their claim that they paid for Guttierez's
ticket. As such, it is proper to reimburse Guttierez the excess SR1,100.00 payment. In Kaisahan,
we held that although an express finding of facts and law is still necessary to prove the merit of
the award, there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith
when it withheld wages." The findings of fact required to prove entitlement to attorney's fees in
labor cases refer to the unjustified withholding of lawful wages. Here, it is undisputed that
Guttierez was not paid lawful wages corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract.
Therefore, Guttierez is entitled to attorney's fees.
The said salary deduction was improper because an illegally dismissed migrant worker is entitled
to a full reimbursement of his/her placement fee. The placement fee is really one for the
repayment of Guttierez's November 2013 salary because Guttierez never paid respondents a
placement fee. Hence, Guttierez is not entitled to a refund because he never paid respondents any
placement fee. Consequently, Guttierez is not entitled to a 12% interest on the same.
G.R. No. 213961, January 22, 2020
PRIME STARS INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION CORPORATION AND RICHARD U.
PERALTA, PETITIONERS, v. NORLY M. BAYBAYAN AND MICHELLE V. BELTRAN,
RESPONDENTS
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS: Prime Stars is a local recruitment agency with Taiwan Wacoal Co., Ltd.,
(Wacoal) and Avermedia Technologies Inc. (Avermedia) as foreign principals. Peralta is
one of the officers of Prime Stars. Baybayan was deployed by Prime Stars to Wacoal for
a contract period of 24 months or two years, with a monthly salary of NT$15,840.00 per
month. However, he was only paid NT$9,000.00 a month and upon inquiry, was
informed that the amount of NT$4,000.00 was being deducted from his salary for
expenses for his board and lodging. Since he still had debts to pay back home, he
finished the contract and returned to the Philippines on May 19, 2009. On the other
hand, Beltran was likewise recruited by Prime Stars and was deployed to Avermedia as
an "operator" who assembles TV boxes and USB. Her contract duration was for two
years with a monthly salary of NT$17,280.00. She was deployed on June 22, 2008 and
was under the supervision of a Taiwanese employee named "Melody." After a year, her
services was abruptly and unceremoniously terminated by her supervisor and was
immediately repatriated to the Philippines on July 3, 2009.

Beltran then instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and sought for the payment of the
unexpired portion of her contract, the refund of her placement fee, repatriation
expenses, plus damages and attorney's fees against herein petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners are liable for respondents' money claims pursuant to
their contracts of employment
RULING: Beltran was illegally dismissed. Petitioners maintain that Beltran voluntarily
preterminated her contract of employment for personal reasons; thus, it precluded her
from recovering the unexpired portion of her employment contract. They also contest
Beltran's bare testimonies and allegations of undue pressure and duress for being
unsubstantiated and in contrast to petitioners' documentary evidence which are
Beltran's duly signed Mutual Contract Annulment Agreement and Worker Discontinue
Employment Affidavit. it is highly unlikely that Beltran would just quit even before the
end of her contract after all the expenses she incurred and still needed to settle and the
sacrifices she went through in seeking financial upliftment. It is incongruous for Beltran
to simply give up her work, return home, and be unemployed once again given that so
much time, effort, and money have already been invested to secure her employment
abroad and enduring the tribulations of being in a foreign country and away from her
family.
As regards Beltran's summary dismissal from employment, there was· nothing
"voluntary" in putting words into Beltran's own mouth in the guise of her handwritten
statement of resignation. Petitioners' attempt to demonstrate voluntariness fails since
"cooperate" is more of an imposition coming from the employer rather than from a
disadvantaged overseas employee. The execution of the documents was indeed plainly
oppressive and violative of Beltran's security of tenure. Veritably, the award of moral
and exemplary damages is sufficient to allay the sufferings experienced by respondents
and by way of example or correction for public good, respectively.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and
all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be
incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition
precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the
recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money
claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement
agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case
may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or
partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
 A party who does not appeal or file a petition for review is not entitled to
any affirmative relief.

G.R. No. 244437 September 14, 2020

HRS. OF PAJARES vs NORTH SEA MARINE SERVICES CORP.

FACTS: One day, Amadeo, a Suite Attendant of the respondents, suffered severe nose bleeding. Amadeo
underwent a series of tests when the vessel docked and was thereafter repatriated. He was diagnosed
by the company-designated physician and another independent physician, with Multiple Myeloma
(cancer of the blood) and was eventually declared unfit for sea duties. He asked for copies of his medical
reports and was denied. Amadeo requested for a grievance proceeding reiterating his request for copies
of his medical records and referral to a third doctor. However, no settlement was arrived. The
petitioners, now, alleged Amadeo’s work requires the use of strong chemicals, thus, the latter was
exposed daily to the noxious chemicals of the cleaning agents as part of his work. The Panel of VAs
upheld the medical findings of the company-designated physician that the illness is not work-related.
The counsel of Amadeo only submitted the medical report of the independent physician, which Amadeo
had a chance to take snapshots, only after his death of Amadeo. And for the sake of social and
compassionate justice, the Panel of VAs awarded petitioners a financial assistance.

ISSUE/S:
(1) WON a non-appellant may, on appeal, seek affirmative relief.
(2) WON the petitioners are entitled to financial assistance.

HELD:
(1) No. Due process and fair play dictate that a non-appellant may not be granted additional
award or benefits nor may he or she be allowed to assail or ask the modification of the
judgment, which was not appealed by him or her. However, for the purpose of
maintaining the assailed judgment, a non-appellant may interpose counter-arguments or
counter assignment of errors even if such were not raised by the appellant or the even if
the issue was not included in the assailed decision. In the petition, petitioners failed to
appeal the findings of the Panel of VAs. It was North Sea who elevated the Decision of
the Panel of VAs via a Petition for Review before the CA.
(2) Yes. Even if Amadeo is not entitled to any disability benefits, the Court, has in several
instances, awarded financial assistance to separated employees due to humanitarian
considerations through the principle of social and compassionate justice for the working
class. Considering that Amadeo has rendered several years of service with North Sea and
there was no showing that he has derogatory records and that his employment was not
severed due to the commission of an infraction but due to a debilitating illness, the Court
agrees with the CA in awarding financial assistance to Amadeo.