Case #53 - Zosa

AC No. 5649, January 27, 2006

Dandy V. Quijano, complainant, VS.
Geobel A. Bartolabac (Labor Arbiter, NLRC-NCR South), and
Alberto R. Quimpo (Commissioner, NLRC-First Division), respondents
Topic: Canon 6 (but no Canon 6 or rules under it has been mentioned in the
case)
Facts:
1. Dandy Quijano was dismissed by the Mercury Drug Corporation in his
position as a Warehouseman. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
before the NLRC (Quijano vs Mercury Drug Corporation). The case was
elevated to the Supreme Court (Court) which promulgated a decision in
Quijanos favor. The Court ordered, among others, for Quijanos
reinstatement. Mercurys motion for reconsideration was denied by the
Court in its July 5, 1999 Resolution.
2. Quijano filed a motion for execution of the final resolution before Labor
Arbiter Bartolabac; but LA Bartolabac issued an order which has a tenor
different from that of the final judgment. Instead of reinstatement,
Bartolabac awarded backwages and separation pay. Later on it was found
out that the Bartolabac initially recommended the position of Self-Service
Attendant as allegedly, the position of Warehouseman has been abolished
and that Quijano was not qualified to other vacancies (pharmacists,
pharmacy assistant, cashier, self-service attendant) as he was not a college
graduate, according to Mercurys appeal.
3. On the other hand, Quimpo said his participation was only that of acting
on Mercurys appeal of Quijanos reinstatement as Self-Service Attendant.
Quimpo asserts that by law, the Commission has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to hear and decide all decisions, awards or orders rendered by
the Labor Arbiter. He directed LA Bartolabac to expedite the proceedings
before it on the issue of Quijanos reinstatement.
4. Quimpo also asserted that Quijano already received the full satisfaction
of his monetary award which shows that the Commission has complied in
good faith with the directive to execute the Courts final judgment award in
favor of Quijano.

5. Nonetheless, Quijano filed before the IBP a complaint, written in

Filipino, against LA Atty. Geobel Bartolabac and NLRC Commissioner
Alberto Quimpo for violating his constitutional right to due process in
failing to execute the final and executory judgment of the Court.
6. The IBP recommended for the dismissal of Quijanos complaint against
the respondents. Quijano filed a motion for reconsideration but the same
was denied since the matter had already been endorsed to the Court; the IBP
no longer had jurisdiction over the case.
7. The Court was disappointed with the IBP, falling short of its expectations.
The exoneration of the Respondents was only contained in two paragraphs
with the reasoning that the respondents prior case with the Ombudsman,
filed by Quijano, was also dismissed. SC treated the motion for
reconsideration as a petition for review and acted upon it.
Issue: Whether or not respondents are liable for their acts in deviating from
the final and executory judgment of the Court.
Decision:
1. The Court asserts that Quijano must be reinstated to his former position
or its equivalent. Mercurys contention that there was no substantial
equivalent position for Quijanos reistatement (which was erroneously
upheld by NLRC) is untenable. Mercury operates nationwide and has
numerous branches all over the Philippines. Quijano occupied a clerk/rank
and file position, the Court finds it highly inconceivable that no other
substantially equivalent position exists to effect his reinstatement.
2. It is incumbent upon the respondents to implement the letter of the final
judgment. They have no discretion on the matters of final judgment, much
less any authority to change the orders of the Court. Once the case is
decided with finality, the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest.
The prevailing party is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his victory while the
other party is obliged to respect the courts verdict and to comply with it.
(Siy vs NLRC)
3. Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of life, libery, and
property without due process of law. Employment is considered a property
right and can not be taken away from the employee without legal

proceedings. Respondents dispossessed Quijano of his source of living by

not implementing his reinstatement.
4. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds respondents liable
for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Respondents Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac and

Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo are hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of THREE (3) months.