Lansangan vs. Amkor Technology

Name: Keisha Rojas Week no. : IV.C.1.a Topic: Reliefs for Illegal Dismissal/ Pending appeal Title: Lansangan vs. Amkor Technology Technology G.R. No. 177!"# $an%ary &' !( )octri )octrine: ne:  Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a dismissed or  separated emploee while the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal, as what happened in Roquero. It does not appl where there is no finding of  illegal dismissal, as in the present case. !!!" In cases of reg#lar emploment, the emploer shall not terminate the ser$ices of an emploee e!cept for a %#st ca#se or when a#thori&ed ' this (itle. An emploee who is un unju justl stly y *ismisse* from from wor) wor) shall shall 'e entit entitle led d to reins reinstat tateme ement nt with witho#t o#t loss loss of  seniorit rights righ ts and other pri$ileges and to his +%ll ,ack-ages , incl#si$e of allowances, and to his other 'enefits or their monetar e*#i$alent comp#ted from the time his compensation was withheld from him #p to the time of his act#al reinstatement +mphasis, #nderscoring and italics s#pplied-,

anonmo#s email was sent to the eneral eneral 0anager of Am)or Am)or (echnolog acts: An anonmo#s Phili Philipp ppine ines s +res +respon ponden dentt- detai detailin ling g alleg allegat ation ions s of malfea malfeasa sance nce on the the part part of its s#per s#per$is $isor or  emplo emploees ees #nes #nesa a ansa ansanga ngan n and and Rosit Rosita a Cend Cendaa aa +peti +petitio tione nersrs- for  for  /stealing company time.  Respondent th#s in$estigated the matter, re*#iring petitioners to s#'mit their written e!planation. In handwritten letters ' petitioners a*mitte* their   -rong*oing.Respon*ent there%pon terminate* petitioners +or /e0tremely serio%s defined ed in its Code of Disci Discipli pline ne.. (his (his promp prompte ted d Petit Petition ioners ers +ile o++enses/ as defin +ile* * a complaint +or illegal *ismissal. dismisse sed d the the petit petition ioners ers44 compl complai aint nt ' ho-e La,or Ar,i r,iter' dismis ho-ev ver' er' or*e or*ere re* * the the reinstatement reinstatement o+ petitioners to their +ormer positions positions -itho%t ,ack-ages as a meas#re meas#re of e*#ita' e*#ita'le le and compass compassion ionate ate relief relief owing owing mainl mainl to petitio petitioners ners44 prior  prior  #n'lemis #n'lemished hed emplo emploment ment records records,, show of remorse, remorse, harshness harshness of the penalt penalt and defecti$e attendance monitoring sstem of respondent. Respondent appealed the decision of the A regarding the reinstatement. 0eanwhile, the petitioners mo$ed to the iss#ance of 5writ of reinstatement6. reinstatement6. (he Ar'iter then iss#ed an alias writ of e!ec#tion following which respondent4s 'an) acco#nt at *#ita'lePCI 7an) was garnished, where the respondent also mo$ed for the *#ashal of said decision. NLR, grante* respon*ent2 respon*ent2s s appeals ,y *eleting *eleting the reinstatement reinstatement aspect o+ the Ar,iter2s r,iter2s *ecisi *ecision on an* settin setting g asi*e asi*e the Ar,iter2 Ar,iter2s s Alias lias Writ Writ o+ 30ec%ti 30ec%tion on an* Petition ioners ers file file a motion motion for reco recons nside idera ratio tion n which which was was Noti Notice ce o+ Garn Garnis ishm hmen ent. t. Petit s#'se*#elt denied. 7oth parties appealed to CA.

(he (he CA affir affirme med d the the find findin ing g of A and 8RC 8RC that that ther there e was a $ali $alid d dism dismis issa sal. l. Respon Respon*en *entt -ere -ere or*ere* or*ere* to /pay /pay petiti petitione oners rs their their corresp correspon* on*ing ing ,ack-ag ,ack-ages es witho#t *#alification and ded#ction +or the perio* covering 4cto,er !' !5 6*ate o+ 

the Ar,iter2s *ecision %p to $%ne &' !8 6*ate o+ the NLR )ecision , citing  Article 223 of the a'or Code and Ro*#ero $. Philippine Airlines 7oth parties4 filed their respecti$e motions for partial reconsideration which were denied. 9nl petitioners appealed to the :C. Petitioners cited the case of Ro*#ero $. Philippine  Airlines where the therein emploer was ordered to pa the wages to which the therein employee -as entitle* +rom the time the reinstatement or*er -as iss%e* %ntil the 9NAL9T o+ this o%rt2s *ecision. 9ss%e: ;98 the petitioners were entitled to 'ac) wages onl #p to the time when the 8RC rendered its decision. ;el*: (he :C r#led that the petition fails. (he decision of the Ar'iter finding that petitioners committed dishonest as a form of serio#s miscond#ct and fra#d, or 'reach of tr#st had 'ecome final, petitioners not ha$ing appealed the same 'efore the 8RC as in fact the e$en mo$ed for the e!ec#tion of the reinstatement aspect of the decision. It 'ears recalling that it was onl respondent which assailed the Ar'iters decision to the 8RC to solel *#estion the propriet of the order for reinstatement, and it s#cceeded. Roquero, as well as Article 223 of the a'or Code on which the appellate co#rt also relied, finds no application in the present case. Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a dismissed or separated emploee while the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal, as what happened in Roquero. It does not appl where there is no finding of illegal dismissal, as in the present case. (he Ar'iter fo#nd petitioners dismissal to 'e $alid. :#ch finding had, as stated earlier, 'ecome final, petitioners not ha$ing appealed it. which pro$ides?

!!!! In cases of reg#lar emploment, the emploer shall not terminate the ser$ices of an emploee e!cept for a %#st ca#se or when a#thori&ed ' this (itle. An emploee who is unjustly *ismisse* from wor) shall 'e entitled to reinstatement witho#t loss of  seniorit rights and other pri$ileges and to his +%ll ,ack-ages, incl#si$e of allowances, and to his other 'enefits or their monetar e*#i$alent comp#ted from the time his compensation was withheld from him #p to the time of his act#al reinstatement +mphasis, #nderscoring and italics s#pplied-, Petitioners are not entitled to f#ll 'ac)wages as their dismissal was not fo#nd to 'e illegal. Agabon v. NLRC @1> so states pament of 'ac)wages and other 'enefits is  %#stified only i+  the emploee was #n%#stl dismissed.