Held
Whether the NLRC was correct in ordering Psalm Corporation to pay Sofia’s wages during the pendency of the appeal cannot be categorically answered without knowing whether Psalm unjustifiably refused to reinstate Sofia pending appeal. The law and jurisprudence require payment of wages during appeal only if the employer unjustifiably refuses reinstatement.
Explanation
The law provides that a Labor Arbiter’s decision ordering reinstatement is immediately executory even if appealed. The employee must be reinstated physically or at least on the payroll, and the employer’s posting of a bond does not delay this reinstatement. However, the execution of the decision, except for reinstatement, is stayed pending appeal. If the employer disobeys the reinstatement order, the Labor Arbiter must issue a writ of execution to enforce reinstatement and payment of accrued salaries.
The Supreme Court clarified that the employee is entitled to wages during the pendency of the appeal if the employer unjustifiably refuses reinstatement. However, if the delay in reinstatement is not the employer’s fault, such as due to corporate rehabilitation or other valid reasons, the employee may be barred from collecting wages during the appeal. When the Labor Arbiter’s decision is reversed on appeal, the employer is no longer obligated to pay wages for the appeal period unless the delay was unjustified.
Application to the facts
In Sofia’s case, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and declared her dismissal valid. Since the reinstatement order was overturned, Sofia’s entitlement to wages during the appeal period depends on whether Psalm Corporation unjustifiably refused to reinstate her pending appeal. The available facts do not establish whether Psalm reinstated Sofia or unjustifiably refused to do so. Therefore, it cannot be categorically determined from the given information whether the NLRC’s order to pay wages during the appeal was correct.
"Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders... 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, even 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…
"The perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter except execution for reinstatement pending appeal."
"In case the decision includes an order of reinstatement, and the employer disobeys the directive... the Labor Arbiter shall immediately issue writ of execution, even pending appeal, directing the employer to immediately reinstate the dismissed employee either physically or in the payroll, and to pay the accrued salaries as a consequence of such non-reinstatement in the amount specified in the decision."
"Where the executed judgment is totally or partially reversed or annulled by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court with finality and restitution is so ordered, the Labor Arbiter shall, on motion, issue such order of restitution of the executed award, except reinstatement wages paid pending appeal."
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Article 229, Labor Relations
- Section 3, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
- Section 12, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
- Section 18, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
"A similar question is now being raised, i.e., whether the respondent may collect reinstatement salaries which he is supposed to have received from the time PAL received the LA decision, orderinghis reinstatement, until the same was overturned by the NLRC. The rule is that the employee is entitled to reinstatement salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the LA decision granting him said relief. In Roquero v. Philippine Airlines,28 the Court underscored that it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal untilreversal by the higher…
"Petitioner's contentions are unmeritorious It is judicially settled that in order to implement the Labor Arbiter's order of reinstatement a writ of execution is imperative, either upon motion of the dismissed employee or the Labor Arbiter's own initiative. In the recent case of _Archilles Manufacturing Corporation v_. _NLRC_ ,6 we expounded thus: As regards the first issue, _i_._e_., whether a writ of execution is still necessary to enforce the Labor Arbiter's order of immediate reinstatement even when pending appeal, we agree with petitioners that it is necessary. . . We have fully explained the legal basis for…
The Supreme Court in Philippine Airlines v. Paz explained that the employee is entitled to reinstatement salaries during appeal if the employer unjustifiably refuses to reinstate, but may be barred from collecting such wages if the delay was not the employer's fault (Philippine Airlines v. Paz, G.R. No. 192924, 26 November 2014).
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.