Builders v. Talde

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Jose A. Talde (respondent) was hired in 1990 as a carpenter by petitioner Golden Ace Builders of which its co-petitioner Arnold Azul (Azul) is the owner-manager. In February 1999, Azul, alleging the unavailability of construction projects, stopped giving work assignments to respondent, prompting the latter to file a complaint1 for illegal dismissal. By Decision2 of January 10, 2001, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent and ordered his immediate reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and with payment of full backwages, which at that time was computed at ₱144,382.23, and the amount of ₱3,236.37 representing premium pay for rest days, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.

Pending their appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and in compliance with the Labor Arbiter's Decision, petitioners, through counsel, advised respondent to report for work in the construction site within 10 days from receipt thereof. Respondent submitted, however, on May 16, 2001 a manifestation3 to the Labor Arbiter that actual animosities existed between him and petitioners and there had been threats to his life and his family's safety, hence, he opted for the payment of separation pay. Petitioners denied the existence of any such animosity.

Meanwhile, the NLRC dismissed petitioners' appeal by Resolution4 of April 22, 2002, holding that respondent was a regular employee and not a project employee, and that there was no valid ground for the termination of his services. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution5 of August 6, 2002. Petitioners' appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed by Decision6 of August 12, 2004 which attained finality on September 15, 2004.

As an agreement could not be forged by the parties on the satisfaction of the judgment, the matter was referred to the Fiscal Examiner of the NLRC who recomputed at ₱562,804.69 the amount due respondent, which was approved by the Labor Arbiter by Order7 of July 5, 2005. A writ of execution8 dated July 8, 2005 was thereupon issued. Finding the amount exorbitant, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, contending that since respondent refused to report back to work, he should be considered to have abandoned the same, hence, the recomputation of the wages and benefits due him should not be beyond May 15, 2001, the date when he manifested his refusal to be reinstated.

By Resolution9 of March 9, 2006, the NLRC granted petitioners' motion and accordingly vacated the computation. It held that since respondent did not appeal the Decision of the Labor Arbiter granting him only reinstatement and backwages, not separation pay in lieu thereof, he may not be afforded affirmative relief; and since he refused to go back to work, he may recover backwages only up to May 20, 2001, the day he was supposed to return to the job site. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC by Resolution10 of June 30, 2006, hence, he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

By Decision11 of September 10, 2008, the appellate court set aside the NLRC Resolutions, holding that respondent is entitled to both backwages and separation pay, even if separation pay was not granted by the Labor Arbiter, the latter in view of the strained relations between the parties. The appellate court disposed:

WHEREFORE , in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition filed in this case. The assailed RESOLUTIONS dated 30, 2006 and March 9, 2006 of the NLRC are hereby SET ASIDE. Thus, the full backwages and separation pay to be awarded to the petitioner shall be computed as follows: Full Backwages as of June 30, 2005 = ₱562,804.69 Separation Pay: ₱220.00 x 26 days = ₱5,720,00 ₱5,720/month x 8 years = 45,760.00