Labor Law 2015-2016

Smart vs Solidum
Case Digest GR 204646 April 15 2015
Full Text
Facts:

salaries, allowances, benefits, incentives

and bonuses until the NLRCs reversal of the
labor arbiters order of reinstatement
becomes final and executory.

Solidum was dismissed for dishonesty-related

offenses. The Labor Arbiter ruled that he was

Here, the NLRCs May 29, 2009 resolution on

illegally dismissed and thereby entitled to

Solidums motion for reconsideration became

reinstatement and full back wages. Solidum

final on August 10, 2009, as shown in the entry

received the copy of LAs decision on July 13,

of judgment. Hence, Solidum is entitled to his

2006. Smart appealed before the NLRC. While

reinstatement salaries and benefits which

appeal was pending, the LA issued writs of

started from July 13, 2006 and until August 10,

execution covering the period of July 21, 2006

2009.

to January 22, 2009 for the collection of

Solidums the accrued salaries, allowances,

Issue 2: W/N August 10, 2009 is the true date

benefits, incentives and bonuses.

of finality of the May 29, 2009 decision

Yes. Since the Entry of Judgment confirms that

In January 26, 2009, the NLRC reversed the

August 10, 2009 is the date of finality of the

LAs decision. Solidum filed a motion for

NLRC decision promulgated on May 29, 2009,

reconsideration.

then it is so.

While waiting for the NLRC resolution, on May

As a general rule under Sec 14 of the 2002

4, 2009, Solidum filed before the LA an ex

New Rules of NLRC Procedure, decisions of the

parte motion for a writ of execution to be

NLRC shall become final after 10 days from the

issued ordering the sheriff to collect from

receipt of the decision by the parties. But

Smart his salaries, etc. which accrued

when there is delay as shown by the absence

from January 21, 2009 to April 20, 2009. The

of return card or certification from the post

LA, however, denied the issuance of writ of

office, the finality of the decision shall be

execution on the ground that the NLRC has

determined by the Clerk of Court by giving 60

reversed its decision, so that Solidum is no

calendar days from the mailing of the decision.

longer entitled to his claim of reinstatement

when the NLRC decision was rendered.

Here, it appears that there was no return card

or certification or it was delayed after the copy

In May 29, 2009, the NLRC denied Solidums

of the decision was mailed on June 11, 2009.

motion for reconsideration. Copy of the

Hence, an allowance of 60 calendar days was

decision was mailed to Solidum on July 11,

given for the delay making it final and

2009. In its entry of judgment, it was

executory only on August 10, 2009.

confirmed that the NLRC May 29, 2009

resolution has become final and executory

Fonterra Brand Phils, Inc. vs Largado and

Estrellado

onAugust 10, 2009.

Case Digest GR 205300 March 18 2015

Full Text

Issue 1: W/N the Labor Arbiter is correct in

denying the issuance of writ of execution

Facts:

No. The Labor Arbiter should have issued the

Fonterra contracted the services of Zytron to

writ of execution because its reinstatement

provide for trade merchandising

order was still enforceable for the period of

representatives (TMRs) in the marketing and

January 21 to April 20, 2009.

promotion of its milk and dairy products.

Among those TMRs whose services were

It is a well-settled jurisprudential rule that

engaged are Largado and Estrellado, who are

employees are entitled to their accrued

the respondents in this case. After 4 years,

Labor Law 2015-2016

Fonterra terminated its contract with Zytron
and entered into an agreement for manpower
supply with AC Sicat. Desirous of continuing
their work as TMRs in Fonterra, Largado and
Estrellado submitted their job application with
AC Sicat, a legitimate job contracting company.
AC Sicat hired their services as TMRs for a
term of 5 months.
When their 5-month contract with AC Sicat
were about to expire, they allegedly sought
renewal thereof, which was allegedly refused.
This prompted them to file for complaints of
illegal dismissal, regularization, nonpayment of
service incentive leave, 13thmonth pay, and
actual and moral damages against Fonterra,
Zytron and AC Sicat.
Issue 1: W/N Largado and Estrellado were
illegally terminated by Zytron
No. When Largado and Estrella refused to
renew their contract with Zytron by applying
with AC Sicat, they effectively resigned from
Zytron. Hence, they were not illegally
dismissed because they voluntary terminated
their employment with the latter.
Issue 2: W/N Largado and Estrellado were
illegally terminated by AC Sicat
No. There is no illegal dismissal to speak of
since AC Sicat is a legitimate job contractor
and their termination is merely brought about
by the expiration of their employment
contracts with AC Sicat.
First, Largado and Estrellado were hired as
fixed-term or project employees of AC Sicat.
The determining factor of such employment is
not the duty of the employee but the day
certain agreed upon by the parties for the
commencement and termination of the
employment relationship. Second, the nonrenewal of their contracts by AC Sicat is
a management prerogative, and failure of
respondents to prove that such was done in
bad faith militates against their contention
that they were illegally dismissed.
Hence, the expiration of their contract with AC
Sicat simply caused the natural cessation of
their fixed-term employment thereat.