Smart vs Solidum

Case Digest GR 204646 April 15 2015

Facts:
Solidum was dismissed for dishonesty-related offenses. The Labor Arbiter ruled that he was illegally dismissed and thereby
entitled to reinstatement and full back wages. Solidum received the copy of LAs decision on July 13, 2006. Smart appealed
before the NLRC. While appeal was pending, the LA issued writs of execution covering the period of July 21, 2006 to
January 22, 2009 for the collection of Solidums the accrued salaries, allowances, benefits, incentives and bonuses.
In January 26, 2009, the NLRC reversed the LAs decision. Solidum filed a motion for reconsideration.
While waiting for the NLRC resolution, on May 4, 2009, Solidum filed before the LA an ex parte motion for a writ of
execution to be issued ordering the sheriff to collect from Smart his salaries, etc. which accrued from January 21,
2009 to April 20, 2009. The LA, however, denied the issuance of writ of execution on the ground that the NLRC has reversed
its decision, so that Solidum is no longer entitled to his claim of reinstatement when the NLRC decision was rendered.
In May 29, 2009, the NLRC denied Solidums motion for reconsideration. Copy of the decision was mailed to Solidum
on July 11, 2009. In its entry of judgment, it was confirmed that the NLRC May 29, 2009 resolution has become final and
executory on August 10, 2009.
Issue 1: W/N the Labor Arbiter is correct in denying the issuance of writ of execution
No. The Labor Arbiter should have issued the writ of execution because its reinstatement order was still enforceable for
the period of January 21 to April 20, 2009.
It
is
a
well-settled
jurisprudential
rule
that
employees
are
entitled
to
their
accrued
salaries, allowances, benefits, incentives and bonuses until the NLRCs reversal of the labor arbiters order of
reinstatement becomes final and executory.
Here, the NLRCs May 29, 2009 resolution on Solidums motion for reconsideration became final on August 10, 2009, as
shown in the entry of judgment. Hence, Solidum is entitled to his reinstatement salaries and benefits which started from
July 13, 2006 and until August 10, 2009.
Issue 2: W/N August 10, 2009 is the true date of finality of the May 29, 2009 decision
Yes. Since the Entry of Judgment confirms that August 10, 2009 is the date of finality of the NLRC decision promulgated
on May 29, 2009, then it is so.
As a general rule under Sec 14 of the 2002 New Rules of NLRC Procedure, decisions of the NLRC shall become final after 10
days from the receipt of the decision by the parties. But when there is delay as shown by the absence of return card or
certification from the post office, the finality of the decision shall be determined by the Clerk of Court by giving 60 calendar
days from the mailing of the decision.
Here, it appears that there was no return card or certification or it was delayed after the copy of the decision was mailed
on June 11, 2009. Hence, an allowance of 60 calendar days was given for the delay making it final and executory only on
August 10, 2009.
Fonterra Brand Phils, Inc. vs Largado and Estrellado
Case Digest GR 205300 March 18 2015
Facts:
Fonterra contracted the services of Zytron to provide for trade merchandising representatives (TMRs) in the marketing
and promotion of its milk and dairy products. Among those TMRs whose services were engaged are Largado and Estrellado,
who are the respondents in this case. After 4 years, 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, 13th month 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 non-renewal 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.
Visayas Community Medical Center vs Yballe
Case Digest: GR 196156 Jan 15, 2014
Facts:
The NFL is the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of MCCH (now VCMC). NAMA-MCCHNFL is a local affiliate whose union leaders proceeded to strike despite the fact that it is not a legitimate labor
organization. The respondents in this case are staff nurses and midwives of MCCH who actively joined and were believed
to have took part in committing illegal acts during the strike. Consequently, MCCH terminated the union leaders of NAMAMCCH-NFL as well as the respondents. The CA, however, found that respondents cannot be considered to have committed
illegal acts since their participation was limited to the wearing of arm bands.
Issue 1: W/N the dismissal of the respondents is valid
Held:
No. Article 263 (a)(par 3) provides that any union officer who knowingly participated in an illegal strike and any union
officer or union member who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to
have lost his employment status. Here, the respondents merely participated in the illegal strike but did not commit any
of the illegal acts. Hence, their termination is not valid.
Issue 2: W/N the respondents are entitled to backwages
No. The principle of a fair days wage for a fair days labor remains as the basic factor in determining the award of
backwages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless the laborer was able,
willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from
working. For this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal. Since the strike in this case was illegal, the
respondents cannot be awarded with backwages.
Issue 3: W/N the respondents are entitled to reinstatement
No. Considering that strained relations ensued, the grant of separation pay to respondents is the alternative in lieu of
reinstatement.
Jurisprudence states that the alternative relief for union members who were dismissed for having participated in an illegal
strike is the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement under the following circumstances: (a) when reinstatement
can no longer be effected in view of the passage of a long period of time or because of the realities of the situation; (b)
reinstatement is inimical to the employers interest; (c) reinstatement is no longer feasible; (d) reinstatement does not
serve the best interests of the parties involved; (e) the employer is prejudiced by the workers continued employment; (f)
facts that make execution unjust or inequitable have supervened; or (g) strained relations between the employer and
employee.