Lim VS. HMR Phils. Inc. Digest

CONRAD CONRADO O A. LIM, Petitioner , v. HMR PHILIPPIN PHILIPPINES, ES, INC., INC., TERESA TERESA SANTOSSANTOSCASTRO CASTRO,, HENR HENRY BU BUNAG NAG AND NELSO NELSON N CAMILL CAMILLER ER , Respondents., G.R. No. No. Respondents., G.R. 201483, Augu! 04, 2014 "#$!% On Februa ebruary ry 2001, 2001, petiti petitione onerr (Lim) (Lim) fled fled a case case or illegal illegal dis dismis missa sall and money claims against respondents (H! "#il $nc.) and its o%cers, &eresa '. antos *astro, Henry '. +unag and elson . *amiller. &#e L- dismissed t#e complaint or lac o merit. On -pril 200/, t#e L!* reersed reersed t#e L- ecision and declared declared Lim to #ae been illegally dismissed. !espondents ere t#en ordered to pay t#e Lim #is ull ull bac baca age ges s 3rec recon oned ed rom rom #is #is dism dismis issa sall on Febru ebruar ary y /, 20 2001 01 up to t#e t#e promulgation o t#is ecision.4 Lim and H! "#il $nc. appealed to *-. &#e *- a%rmed t#e L!* ecision it# modifcation. *onse5uently, *onse5uently, H! "#il $nc. appealed to * and as denied. On ept eptem embe berr 20 2006 06,, Lim Lim moe moed d or or e7ecut ecutio ion. n. On oe oemb mber er 20 2006 06,, t#e t#e *omputation and !esearc# 8nit (*!8) o t#e L!* computed t#e bacages rom February February /, 2001, t#e date o t#e illegal dismissal, dismissal, up to October /1, 2006, t#e date o actual reinstatement. H! opposed t#e computation arguing t#at t#e bac ages s#ould be computed until -pril 11, 200/ (t#e date o promulgation promulgation o t#e L!* L!* decision), as stated in t#e dispositie portion o t#e L!* decision, #ic# proided t#at bacages s#all be 3reconed rom #is dismissal on February /, 2001 up to t#e promulgation o t#is ecision.4 Lim argued t#at t#e body o t#e L!* decision e7plicitly stated t#at #e as entitled to ull bacages rom t#e time #e as illegally dismissed until #is actual reinstatement, #ic# as also in accord it# -rticle 269 o t#e Labor *ode and all preailing :urisprudence.  &#e L- issued t#e order granting t#e motion or e7ecution fled by Lim. Holding t#at t#e bacages s#ould be reconed until -pril 11, 200/ only in accordance it# t#e L!* L!* decision decision and not up to #is actual reinstateme reinstatement. nt. &#e L!* L!* sustaine sustained d t#e computation o t#e L-.

Iu Iu&% &% ;O bac bacage ages s s#ould s#ould be compu computed ted rom rom t#e time time t#e employ employee ee as illegal dismissed until #is actual reinstatement. H&'(< =es. 8nder -rticle 269 o t#e t#e Labor *ode it is clear t#at an illegally illegally dismissed emp employe loyee e is ent entitl itled to #is #is ull ull bac bacag ages es comp ompute uted ro rom t#e t#e time time #is compensation as it##eld it##eld up to t#e time o #is actual reinstatement, reinstatement, to it<  Art. 279. Security of tenure. tenure . $n cases o regular employment, t#e employer s#all not terminate t#e serices o an employee e7cept or a :ust cause or #en aut#ori>ed by t#is &itle. -n employee #o is un:ustly dismissed rom or s#all be entitled to reinstatement it#out loss o seniority rig#ts and ot#er priileges and to #is ull bacages, inclusie o alloances, and to #is ot#er benefts or t#eir monetary e5uialent computed rom t#e time #is compensation as it##eld rom #im up to t#e time o #is actual reinstatement.

 &#e -pril 200/ L!* decision e7pressly e7pressly recogni>es recogni>es t#at Lim is entitled to #is ull bacages until #is actual reinstatement, reinstatement, as ollos< 3$n fne, fne, t#e act o compla complaina inant ntapp appell ellan antt #erein #erein,, do not const constitu itute te a seriou serious s misconduct as to :ustiy #is dismissal. -s suc#, #e is, t#us, entitled to reinstatement to #is ormer position as -ssistant &ec#nical anager, unless suc# position no longer e7ists, in #ic# case, #e s#all be gien a substantially e5uialent position it#out loss o seniority rig#ts. He is, lieise, entitled to #is ull bacages rom t#e time #e as illegally dismissed until #is actual reinstatement.4 reinstatement.4  &#ere is not#ing in t#e L!* decision t#at restricted t#e aard o bacages. onet#eless, onet#eless, t#e allo o t#e said decision limited t#e computation o t#e bacages up to its promulgation on -pril 11, 200/, in t#is ise< 3;H?!?FO 3;H?!?FO!?, !?, premises premises consider considered, ed, :udgment :udgment is #ereby #ereby render rendered ed declarin declaring g t#e appe appeal aled ed eci ecisi sion on !?@? !?@?! !? ? and and ?& ?& - -$ $?A ?A t#at t#at t#e t#e dism dismis issa sall o #er #erein ein complainantappellant as illegal and t#e respondentappellee *ompany is #ereby ordered to reinstate immediately t#e said employee to #is ormer position it#out loss o seniority rig#ts and ot#er priileges. Furt#ermor Furt#ermore, e, t#e respondentappellee respondentappellee *ompany is #ereby ordered to pay t#e complainantappellant #is ull bacages, reconed rom #is dismissal on February /, 2001 up to t#e promulgation o t#is ecision. -ll ot#er claims are #ereby $$? or lac o merit.  &#e *omputation and !esearc# 8nit (*!8) o t#is *ommission is #ereby directed to compute t#e bacages and t#e 10B annual increase rom 199C to 2000. O O!?!?.4 - recomputation, or an original computation, i no preious computation computation as made, as in t#e present case, is a part o t#e la t#at is read into t#e decision, namely, -rticle 269 o t#e Labor *ode and establis#ed :urisprudence. -rticle 269 proides or t#e conse5uences o illegal dismissal, dismissal, one o #ic# is t#e payment o ull bacages until actual reinstatement, 5ualifed only by :urisprudence #en separation pay in lieu o reinstatement is alloed, #ere t#e fnality o t#e illegal dismissal decision instead becomes t#e reconing point.  &#e nature o an illegal dismissal case re5uires t#at bacages continue to add on until ull satisaction. &#e computation re5uired to reDect ull satisaction does not constitute an alteration or amendment o t#e fnal decision being implemented as t#e illegal dismissal ruling stands. &#us, in t#is case, a computation o bacages until actual reinstatement is not a iolation o t#e principle o immutability o fnal  :udgments.  &#e respondents respondents aer t#at t#e recoerable bacages bacages cannot go beyond ecember 2E, 2006, t#e date date H! oere oered d to reins reinstat tate e Lim, Lim, #o #o alleg allegedl edly y reused eused to be reinstated and abandoned #is :ob.

H! sent t#e petitioner a letter, dated ecember 22, 2006, directing #im to report or or on ecember 2E, 2006, it# an oer o separation pay in t#e amount o  "1G0 "1 G0,0 ,000 00.0 .00 0 in lieu lieu o reins einsta tate teme ment nt #ic #ic# # #e coul could d aai aaill o not not late laterr t#an t#an ecember 2E, 2006. Lim replied in a letter, dated ecember 2, 2006, re5uesting or a meeting in Ianuary 200C, considering t#at #is counsel as out o t#e countryA t#at t#e L!* as still in t#e process o computing t#e amount o t#e aard #ic# as necessary to consider t#e oer o separation payA and t#at a rit o e7ecution #ad not yet been issued. H! neer responded to t#e petitionerJs re5uest, and up to t#e present, t#e latter #as yet to be reinstated. From t#e aboe, it is apparent t#at t#e petitioner cannot be deemed to #ae reused reinstatement reinstatement or to #ae abandoned #is :ob. H!Js oer o reinstatement appeared superfcial and insincere considering considering t#at it neer replied to t#e petitionerJs letter. $t did not mae any urt#er attempt to reinstate t#e petitioner eit#er. eit#er. &#e recoerable recoerable bacages, t#us, continue to run, and must be reconed up until t#e petitionerJs actual reinstatement.