Zamboanga Water District vs. Buat et al.

GR 104389, May 27, 1994

FACTS:

A strike in March 1987 participated by herein private respondents

resulted in the latter’s separation from employment. Herein petition filed with the
Labor Arbiter, a complaint to declare the strike illegal, this was followed by
Zamboanga Utilities Labor Union (ZULU) to which herein respondents were members,
a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages before the Labor Arbiter. The two
cases were consolidated and heard together and on April 19, 1988 a consolidated
decision by the Labor arbiter declared both the strike and the dismissal illegal and
ordered reinstatement of private respondents to their previous positions without
loss of seniority rights and privileges but without back wages.

Petitioner's appeal to NLRC was rejected and decision of Labor Arbiter affirmed with
the modification that strike leader Felix Laquio be suspended from work without pay
for 6 mos. Three days after receipt by petitioner of NLRC decision private
respondents filed a writ of execution of said decision with Executive Labor Arbiter,
the same was granted. High Court initially issued TRO against the writ of execution
but on 7/17/1990 affirmed the NLRC decision and lifted
TRO. After receipt by petitioner of SC decision the 27 employees were reinstated and
after the 6 months suspension Laquio was reinstated.

On April 17, private respondents filed a motion to compel the immediate

reinstatement of Laquio and payment of their back wages from 3/6/1991 up the day
of actual reinstatement and to other private respondents from 3/2/1989 to
4/15/1991. Petitioner appealed the NLRC decision but same was denied.

ISSUE:
1. Does NLRC have jurisdiction over the issues?
2. Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when it ordered payment of salaries of private respondents
during the effectivity of the restraining order?

RULING:
1. Yes, through jurisdiction by estoppel. It is well settled rule that GOCC's, of
which petitioner is a water district with an original charter, are covered by the
provisions of the Civil Service Law and Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
Jurisdiction over the strike and dismissal of private respondents is therefore
lodged not with the NLRC but with the CSC. However, petitioner never raised
the issue with the Labor Arbiter, NLRC or this court. Indeed, petitioner
participated in actions with ELA and the NLRC. It is now only, when the NLRC
ordered payment of back wages that petitioner raises the issue of lack of
jurisdiction. It is unfair for a party who has voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction
of a tribunal on a matter to secure an affirmative relief and to repudiate the
same afterwards to escape a penalty. Petitioner is thus estopped from assailing
the jurisdiction of the NLRC.

2. No, the NLRC was correct to say that private respondents should have been
reinstated on 3/21/1989 and back wages from that date to 4/15/1991 including
the effectivity of the TRO. Laquio should have been reinstated on 3/6/1991 and
back wages paid from said date up to actual reinstatement based on RA 6715
which amended Art. 223 (3) of PD 442 which provides that decision of Labor
Arbiters on dismissed or separated employee insofar as reinstatement is
concerned is immediately executory, EVEN PENDING APPEAL.
The issuance of said TRO in GR 95219-20 DID NOT NULLIFY the rights of
private respondents to their reinstatement and collection of back wages during
the effectivity of the order but merely suspended its implementation pending
validity determination of the NLRC resolutions. A finding of this Court that
private respondents were not entitled to reinstatement would mean they had
no right to collect back wages. But since the court affirmed the NLRC decision,
respondents, being ordered reinstated, are entitled to their back wages.

Petition dismissed