G.R. No. 117742 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CALTEX (PHIL.), INC., AND WILLIAM TIFFANY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the dismissal of complainant George Taberrah to be without just cause and in violation of his right to due process, effected with malice, bad faith and ill will, respondent Caltex Philippines, Inc., is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant immediately to his former position with full back wages, without loss of seniority rights and other benefits and privileges attendant therewith, and pay complainant moral damages in the amount of 5 Million and exemplary damages in the amount of P2 Million and the equivalent of 10% of the total award as attorneys fees. On 22 February 1994 respondent CALTEX elevated the case to the NLRC. But instead of posting an appeal bond, it attached to its Memorandum of Appeal a Motion to Fix Appeal Bond alleging that the Labor Arbiter's decision did not contain a computation of the award. On 25 March 1994 NLRC issued an Order fixing the appeal bond and allowing CALTEX an additional period of ten (10) days from receipt of the said Order to post the required bond. Respondent received the Order on 5 April 1994 and posted the required bond on 13 April 1994. In the meantime, TABERRAH filed with the NLRC several motions for execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter pursuant to Art. 223 of the Labor Code which mandates that the reinstatement aspect of the decision shall be immediately executory. The NLRC refused to act on said motions claiming that it is an appellate body with no power to issue writs of execution. On 12 July 1994 the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint. Hence, the instant petition. Petitioner contends that respondent NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (1) when it refused to allow the issuance of a writ of execution on the reinstatement aspect of the decision of the Labor Arbiter pending appeal; (2) when it sustained the position of respondent company that it was denied due process when the Labor Arbiter decided the case on the basis of the pleadings without trial on the merits; (3) when it allowed respondent company an extension of the period within which to perfect the appeal; and, (4) when it reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Article 223, third par., of the Labor Code provides - In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, in so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall be immediately executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein. Under Rule V, third par., of Sec. 16 of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code - In case the decision includes an order of reinstatement, the Labor Arbiter shall direct the employer to immediately reinstate the dismi