Labor - Batch 3 - 4. Buenviaje Vs CA

 

Buenviaje vs CA G.R. No. 147806, November 12, 2002 Puno, J. FAC!" Petitioners were former employees of Cottonway Marketing Corp. (Cottonway), hired as promo girls for their  garment products. In October, !!", after their ser#ices were terminated as the company was allegedly suffering business losses, loss es, peti petitione tioners rs filed with the $ational $ational %abor &elations &elations Commission Commission ($%&C) ($%&C) a complaint complaint for illeg illegal al dismissal dismissal,, underpayment of salary, and non'payment of premium pay for rest day, ser#ice incenti#e lea#e pay and thirteenth month  pay against Cottonway Cottonway Marketing Corp. and $etwork $etwork ashion Inc.*C+ International +rading. +rading.

On ecember !, !!-, %abor rbiter &omulus /. Protasio issued a ecision finding petitioners0 retrenchment #alid and ordering Cottonway to pay petitioners0 separation pay and their proportionate thirteenth month pay. On appeal, the $%&C, in its ecision dated March 12, !!2, re#ersed the ecision of the %abor rbiter and ordered the reinstatem rein statement ent of petitione petitioners rs without without loss of seniority rights rights and other pri#ilege pri#ileges. s. It also ordered Cottonway Cottonway to pay  petitioners their their proportionate thirteenth thirteenth month pay and their full backw backwages ages inclusi#e of allow allowances ances and other benefits, or  their monetary e3ui#alent computed from the time their salaries were withheld from them up to the date of their actual reinstatement. Cottonway filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Cottonway also filed a petition for certiorari with the /upreme Court which was dismissed. 4ence, Cottonway filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of ppeals seeking the re#ersal of the ruling of the $%&C and the reinstatement of the Order of the %abor rbiter. +he appellate court granted the petition, it ruled that petitioners0 reinstatement was no longer possible as they deliberately refused to return to work despite the notice gi#en by Cottonway. Cottonway. C thus held that the amount of backwages due them should be computed only up to the time they recei#ed their notice of  termination. #!!$%"  5$ thereinstatement. computation of the petitioners6 backwages should be computed from the time of their illegal dismissal until their actual R$&#NG" 7es, the court agrees with the petitioners. +he issue of the legality of the termination of petitioners6 ser#ices has been settled in the $%&C decision. +hus, Cottonway was ordered to reinstate petitioners to their former position without loss of seniority rights and other pri#ileges and to pay them full backwages.

8nder &.. 29-, employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to full backwages, inclusi#e of allowances and other   benefits or their monetary e3ui#alent, computed from the time their actual compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is no longer possible, the backwages shall be computed from the time of their illegal termination up to the finality of the decision. +he Court e:plained the meaning of full backwages in the case of ;ustamante #s. $%&C< The Court deems it appropriate, however, to reconsider such earlier ruling on the computation of backwages as enunciated in said Pines City Educational Center case, by now holding that conformably with the evident  legislative intent as expressed in Rep. ct !o. "#$%, above&'uoted, backwages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee, should not, as a general rule, be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. The underlying reason for this ruling is that the employee, while litigating the legality (illegality) of his dismissal, must still earn a living to support himself and family, while full backwages have to be paid by the employer as part of the price or penalty he has to pay for illegally dismissing his employee. The clear legislative intent of the amendment in Rep. ct !o. "#$% is to give more benefits to workers than was previously given them under the *ercury +rug rule or the deduction of earnings elsewhere elsew here rule. Thus, a closer adherence to the legislative policy behind Rep. Act No. 6715 points to "full  bac!ages" as eaning e#actly that, i.e., !ithout deducting fro bac!ages the earnings derived else!here by the concerned eployee during the period of his illegal disissal.  -n other words, the provision calling for  full backwages to illegally dismissed employees is clear, plain and free from ambiguity and, therefore, must be applied without attempted or strained interpret interpretation. ation. -ndex animi sermo est. lso, petitioners0 alleged failure to return to work cannot be made the basis for their termination. /uch failure does not amount to abandonment which would =ustify the se#erance of their employment. +o warrant a #alid dismissal on the ground of abandonment, the employer must pro#e the concurrence of two elements< () the failure to report for work or  absence without #alid or =ustifiable reason, and (1) a clear intention to se#er the employer'employ employer'employee ee relationship.