G.R. No. 115452 -

Ruling

Accordingly, petitioner was ordered to reinstate Tanpiengco with full back wages in the total amount of P91,078.00 from 2 July 1988 to 30 November 1990, with temporary adjustments as the need would arise until his actual reinstatement. [1] On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint of Tanpiengco, in effect holding that his termination was legal, but ordered petitioner to pay him his wages from 25 January 1991 (date of filing of appeal with the NLRC) up to 23 September 1993 (promulgation of NLRC decision) pursuant to Art. 223 of the Labor Code. [2] Both parties moved for reconsideration but were denied on 6 April 1994. [3] Petitioner now contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it awarded back wages to Tanpiengco from 25 January 1991 to 23 September 1993. Petitioner claims that the monetary award to Tanpiengco who was subsequently found to have been validly and legally terminated is "absolutely unwarranted and patently erroneous and unjustifiable." [4] While it is true that under the law the employer found to have illegally dismissed an employee is required to reinstate the employee either actually or through payroll at the employer's option, this requirement according to petitioner needs execution or enforcement by the employee in coordination with the labor department. In the instant case, Tanpiengco never pursued the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter despite the fact that petitioner was perfectly willing to actually recall him during the pendency of the appeal to NLRC. No writ of execution was ever issued by the Labor Arbiter; neither was there any sheriff's return. Thus, by his own inaction or lethargy, Tanpiengco prevented petitioner from actually reinstating him. There is therefore no reason to award him back wages for a failed reinstatement. [5] While we are not in full accord with the finding of the NLRC, that Tanpiengco was validly dismissed for cause, he appears to have accepted the legality of his dismissal as he did not appeal therefrom. He now focuses his attention on collecting his back wages corresponding to the period when his case was pending appeal before the NLRC and in his Comment accuses petitioner of "delay(ing) the execution of the Orders and Decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission dated September 23, 1993 and April 6, 1994." Tanpiengco stresses that he did not waive his reinstatement. In fact he promptly filed on 27 February 1991 a motion for writ of execution with the NLRC but the Labor Tribunal failed to act on it. As a result, petitioner cannot fault him for NLRC's inaction. Private respondent Tanpiengco is correct. In its En Banc decision in Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. NLRC, [6] the Court veered away from Maranaw Hotel Corporation (Century Park Sheraton Manila) v. NLRC, [7] cited in the succeeding cases of Archilles Manufacturing Corporation v. NLRC, [8] and Purificacion Ram v. NLRC, [9]