Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, on account of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the termination of the services of the complainant to be illegal and without just and valid cause. Accordingly, respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate the complainant to his former position, or in case the same is no longer available, to other equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits and privileges.
WHEREFORE, on account of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the termination of the services of the complainant to be illegal and without just and valid cause. Accordingly, respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate the complainant to his former position, or in case the same is no longer available, to other equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits and privileges. Respondents are likewise hereby ordered to pay complainant his full backwages and other benefits which he should have received had his services not been terminated, from July 15, 1997, until actually reinstated, after crediting respondents the separation pay paid to the complainant and other accountabilities in the total amount of P61,052.74 and 10% thereof as and by way of attorney's fees. The total award is tentatively computed as follows: 1. Backwages 07/15/97-05/31/99 = 22.53 months P5,950.00 x 22.53 P134,053.50 2. 13 th Month Pay 1/12 of P134,053.50 11,171.13 P145,224.63 3. Attorney's Fee 10% of P145,224.63 14,522.46 Total Monetary Award P159,747.09 Less: Accountabilities: Separation Pay P35,402.20 Tax Deficiency 1996 4,420.59 Tax Deficiency 1997 229.75 Car Loan Balance 21,000.00 61,052.74 TOTAL P98,694.35 All other claims are hereby denied for lack of merit. Petitioners filed an Appeal [6] to the NLRC docketed as CA No. 021367-99. The NLRC issued a Resolution [7] dated 31 May 2000 denying the appeal for lack of merit. This Resolution of the NLRC became final and executory on 26 June 2000. [8] Respondent then filed a Motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. [9] Petitioners, for their part, further filed a petition to the Court of Appeals docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 60226. The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dated 22 August 2000 dismissing outright the petition in CA G.R. SP No. 60226 filed by the petitioners on the ground of procedural infirmities, such as, failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated 31 May 2000, and failure to append to the petition relevant and pertinent pleadings. [10] This resolution likewise became final and executory and an Entry of Judgment was issued by the appellate court on 25 November 2000. [11] Petitioners elevated the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 60226 to this Court by a petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 145881. This Court resolved to deny the petition in G.R. No. 145881 filed by the petitioners, in a Resolution dated 7 February 2001, for the late filing of the petition and failure to show reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. [12] Entry of Judgment was issued on 13 August 2001. [13] Respondent then resorted to a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. [14] On 28 August 2001, Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas issued a writ of execution [15] addressed to the NLRC Sheriff, the dispositive portion of which reads: NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to proceed to the premises of respondent Marm