53) Quijano vs Bartolabac

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 Quijano’s favor. The Court ordered, among others, for Quijano’s reinstatement. Mercury’s 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 Mercury’s appeal. 3. On the other hand, Quimpo said his participation was only that of acting on Mercury’s appeal of Quijano’s 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 Quijano’s 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 Court’s 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 Quijano’s 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. Mercury’s contention that there was no substantial equivalent position for Quijano’s 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 court’s 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.