The order of reinstatement issued by the labor arbiter is self-executory or immediately executory even pending appeal |
An order of reinstatement issued by the labor arbiter is self-executory or immediately executory even pending appeal. In fact, this right is statutorily enshrined in the Labor Code (See LABOR CODE, as renumbered in 2015, art. 229).
Aligning with this principle, both the 2005 and 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure (2005 NLRC Rules and 2011 NLRC Rules, respectively) specify that the perfection of an appeal suspends the execution of the labor arbiter's decision, with the exception of the reinstatement aspect pending appeal. ⁶⁸
Owing to the immediately executory nature of the decision, the employer is obligated to reinstate and compensate the dismissed employee throughout the appeal process until reversal by the higher court. ⁶⁹
In carrying out the reinstatement provision outlined in the labor arbiter's decision, the employer has two available options: Firstly, it may opt for actual reinstatement, requiring the employee to be restored to the position held prior to the illegal dismissal. This includes reinstating the employee under the same terms and conditions that existed before the dismissal. If the original position is no longer available, the employer must provide a substantially equivalent position.⁷⁰
Alternatively, the employer may choose payroll reinstatement, where the employee is reinstated in the employer's payroll without necessitating his or her return to the workplace. This option allows the employee to resume his or her employment status without physically reporting back to work.⁷¹
In the case of payroll reinstatement, even if the employer's appeal turns the tide in its favor, the reinstated employee has no duty to return or reimburse the salary he received |
It is wellsettled that "[i]n the case of payroll reinstatement, even if the employer's appeal turns the tide in its favor, the reinstated employee has no duty to return or reimburse the salary he received during the period where the lower court's governing decision was for the employee's illegal dismissal. Otherwise, the situation would run counter to the immediately executory nature of an order of reinstatement. " ⁷²
RATIONALE
In Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., ⁷³ this Court elaborated on the impracticality of compelling the employee to reimburse the employer for the monetary award, viz.:
Even outside the theoretical trappings of the discussion and into the mundane realities of human experience, 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. It is mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of insolvency. ⁷⁴
Moreover, should the employer fail to qomply with the labor arbiter's order of reinstatement, the employer becomes obligated to pay the accrued salaries of the reinstated employee as stipulated in the decision. ⁷⁶
In this regard, Our ruling in Smart Communications, Inc. v. Solidum ⁷⁷ emphasized that employees are entitled to their accrued salaries, allowances, benefits,
incentives, and bonuses from the date they received the labor arbiter's decision ordering reinstatement until the NLRC's reversal of the labor arbiter's order of reinstatement becomes final and executory, as shown on the entry of judgment. ⁷⁸
FOOTNOTES
⁶⁸ NLRC Rules of Procedure (2005), rule XI, sec. 6; NLRC Rules of Procedure (2011), rule XI, sec. 3.
⁷¹ Id
⁷⁴ Id. at 538.
renumbered by NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 11-12 (2012); lslriz Trading/Lu v. Capada, 656 Phil. 9, 23
⁷⁸ Id
Read the full text of the case here
Comentarios