173.

Manila Diamond Hotel Ee Union vs CA

GR 140518b 2004

Doctrine:
The Court reiterates that Article 263(g) was not written to protect labor from the excesses of management, nor was it
written to ease management from expenses, which it normally incurs during a work stoppage or slowdown. This law
was written as a means to be used by the State to protect itself from an emergency or crisis. It is not for labor, nor is
it for management.

Facts:
The Union filed a petition for a certification election, which was dismissed by the DOLE. Despite the dismissal of
their petition, the Union sent a letter to the Hotel informing the latter of its desire to negotiate for a collective
bargaining agreement. The Hotel, however, refused to
negotiate with the Union, citing the earlier dismissal of the Union’s petition for certification by DOLE.

Failing to settle the issue, the Union staged a strike against the Hotel. Numerous confrontations followed, further
straining the relationship between the Union and the Hotel. The Hotel claims that the strike was illegal and
dismissed some employees for their participation in the allegedly illegal concerted activity. The Union, on the other
hand, accused the Hotel of illegally dismissing the workers.

A Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code was later filed by the Union before
the Secretary of Labor. Thereafter, Secretary of Labor Trajano issued an Order directing the striking officers and
members of the Union to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours and the Hotel to accept them back under the
same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike.

After receiving the above order the members of the Union reported for work, but the Hotel refused to accept them
and instead filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Secretary’s Order.

Acting on the motion for reconsideration, then Acting Secretary of Labor Español modified the one earlier issued by
Secretary Trajano and instead directed that the strikers be reinstated only in the payroll.

Issue: WON payroll reinstatement is proper in lieu of actual reinstatement under Article 263(g)of the Labor Code.

Held:

Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement is not sanctioned under the provision of the said article.

The Court noted the difference between UST vs. NLRC and the instant case. In UST case the teachers could not be
given back their academic assignments since the order of the Secretary for them to return to work was given in the
middle of the first semester of the academic year.

The NLRC was, therefore, faced with a situation where the striking teachers were entitled to a return to work order,
but the university could not immediately reinstate them since it would be impracticable and detrimental to the
students to change teachers at that point in time.
In the present case, there is no similar compelling reason that called for payroll reinstatement as an alternative
remedy. A strained relationship between the striking employees and management is no reason for payroll
reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement.

Under Article 263(g), all workers must immediately return to work and all employers must readmit all of them under
the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

The Court pointed out that the law uses the precise phrase of “under the same terms and conditions,” revealing that it
contemplates only actual reinstatement. This is in keeping with the rationale that any work stoppage or slowdown in
that particular industry can be inimical to the
national economy.

The Court reiterates that Article 263(g) was not written to protect labor from the excesses of management, nor was it
written to ease management from expenses, which it normally incurs during a work stoppage or slowdown. This law
was written as a means to be used by the State to protect itself from an emergency or crisis. It is not for labor, nor is
it for management.

174. ALEJANDRO ROQUERO vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC

G. R. No. 152329 - April 22, 2003

Doctrine:
Serious misconduct is defined as "the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment."

For serious misconduct to warrant the dismissal of an employee, it (1) must be serious; (2) must relate to the
performance of the employee's duty; and (3) must show that the employee has become unit to continue working for
the employer.

Facts:
Roquero, along with Rene Pabayo, were ground equipment mechanics of respondent PAL. From the evidence on
record, it appears that Roquero and Pabayo were caught red-handed possessing and using Methampethamine
Hydrochloride or shabu in a raid conducted by PAL security officers and NARCOM personnel.

The two alleged that they did not voluntarily indulge in the said act but were instigated by a certain Jojie Alipato
who was introduced to them by Joseph Ocul, Manager of the Airport Maintenance Division of PAL. Pabayo alleged
that Alipato often bragged about the drugs he could smuggle inside the company premises and invited other
employees to take the prohibited drugs. Alipato was unsuccessful, until one day, he was able to persuade Pabayo to
join him in taking the drugs. They met Roquero along the way and he agreed to join them. Inside the company
premises, they locked the door and Alipato lost no time in preparing the drugs to be used. When they started the
procedure of taking the drugs, armed men entered the room, arrested Roquero and Pabayo and seized the drugs and
the paraphernalia used.1 Roquero and Pabayo were subjected to a physical examination where the results showed
that they were positive of drugs. They were also brought to the security office of PAL where they executed written
confessions without the benefit of counsel.

On March 30, 1994, Roquero and Pabayo received a "notice of administrative charge"3 for violating the PAL Code
of Discipline. They were required to answer the charges and were placed under preventive suspension.
Roquero and Pabayo, in their "reply to notice of administrative charge," assailed their arrest and asserted that they
were instigated by PAL to take the drugs. They argued that Alipato was not really a trainee of PAL but was placed
in the premises to instigate the commission of the crime. They based their argument on the fact that Alipato was not
arrested. Moreover, Alipato has no record of employment with PAL.

In a Memorandum dated July 14, 1994, Roquero and Pabayo were dismissed by PAL. Thus, they filed a case for
illegal dismissal.

The NLRC ruled in favor of complainants as it likewise found PAL guilty of instigation. It ordered reinstatement to
their former positions but without backwages.

Issue:
1. Whether or not there is a valid ground to terminate roquero and others? Yes.
2. Whether or not PAL is liable for the backwages from the time NLRC ordered their reinstatement. Yes

Ruling:
There is no question that petitioner Roquero is guilty of serious misconduct for possessing and using shabu. He
violated Chapter 2, Article VII, section 4 of the PAL Code of Discipline which states:

"Any employee who, while on company premises or on duty, takes or is under the influence of prohibited or
controlled drugs, or hallucinogenic substances or narcotics shall be dismissed."

Serious misconduct is defined as "the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment."
For serious misconduct to warrant the dismissal of an employee, it (1) must be serious; (2) must relate to the
performance of the employee's duty; and (3) must show that the employee has become unit to continue working for
the employer.

It is of public knowledge that drugs can damage the mental faculties of the user. Roquero was tasked with the repair
and maintenance of PAL's airplanes. He cannot discharge that duty if he is a drug user. His failure to do his job can
mean great loss of lives and properties. Hence, even if he was instigated to take drugs he has no right to be reinstated
to his position. He took the drugs fully knowing that he was on duty and more so that it is prohibited by company
rules. Instigation is only a defense against criminal liability. It cannot be used as a shield against dismissal from
employment especially when the position involves the safety of human lives.

Petitioner cannot complain he was denied procedural due process. PAL complied with the twin-notice requirement
before dismissing the petitioner. The twin-notice rule requires (1) the notice which apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is being sought along with the opportunity for the employee to
air his side, and (2) the subsequent notice of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Both were given by respondent
PAL.

2. The order of reinstatement is immediately executory. The unjustified refusal of the employer to reinstate a
dismissed employee entitles him to payment of his salaries effective from the time the employer failed to reinstate
him despite the issuance of a writ of execution. Unless there is a restraining order issued, it is ministerial upon the
Labor Arbiter to implement the order of reinstatement. In the case at bar, no restraining order was granted. Thus, it
was mandatory on PAL to actually reinstate Roquero or reinstate him in the payroll. Having failed to do so, PAL
must pay Roquero the salary he is entitled to, as if he was reinstated, from the time of the decision of the NLRC until
the finality of the decision of this Court.
We reiterate the rule that technicalities have no room in labor cases where the Rules of Court are applied only in a
suppletory manner and only to effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code and not to defeat them. Hence, even if the
order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to
reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court.
On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is
reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to
such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period.

175. Garcia v PAL

GR No. 164856; 2009

Doctrine:
Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the
employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the
higher court. On the other hand,if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement
order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is
entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period.

Facts:

Petitioners-employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent PAL who dismissed them after they
were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu within its premises. The Labor Arbiter ruled for the petitioners and
ordered immediately for their reinstatement. Prior to this decision, SEC had placed PAL under an Interim
Rehabilitation Receiver, and subsequently under a Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver. PAL appealed and the Labor
Tribunal ruled in their favor. Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution for the reinstatement and
issued a notice of garnishment. The Labor Tribunal affirmed the writ and notice but suspended and referred the
action to the Rehabilitation Receiver of PAL. On appeal, CA found for respondent PAL.

Issue:

Whether or not PAL being under corporate rehabilitation suspends any monetary claims to it.

Ruling: YES.

It is settled that upon appointment by the SEC of a rehabilitation receiver, all actions for claims before any court,
tribunal or board against the corporation shall ipso jure be suspended. As stated early on, during the pendency of
petitioners’ complaint before the Labor Arbiter, the SEC placed respondent under an Interim Rehabilitation
Receiver. After the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision, the SEC replaced the Interim Rehabilitation Receiver with a
Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver.

While reinstatement pending appeal aims to avert the continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of
the dismissed employee and his family, it does not contemplate the period when the employer-corporation itself is
similarly in a judicially monitored state of being resuscitated in order to survive.