NOVALICHES FOUNDATION AND ADORACION ROXAS, VS. NATIONAL

Ruling

WHEREFORE, responsive to the foregoing, judgment is hereby ordered declaring complainant (sic) dismissal from the service illegal. Respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay for full backwages from the time of dismissal to her actual reinstatement in the amount of Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred One ( P 76,701.00) Pesos. Respondent is hereby ordered to pay complainant P 25,000 as moral damages and P 10,000 by way of exemplary damages. Respondent (sic) are further assessed attorneys fees of 10% of the award. On December 7, 1993, after posting the necessary supersedeas bond, petitioners appealed the aforesaid decision to the NLRC. On January 12, 1994, private respondent presented a Motion for Partial Execution of the reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiters decision. On April 5, 1994, when no action was taken by the Labor Arbiter on her motion, she filed a Motion for Immediate Resolution, and, on July 13, 1994, after three months, still without any action taken by the same Labor Arbiter on her yearning, the private respondent sent in a second Motion for Immediate Resolution. However, Labor Arbiter Raul T. Aquino was appointed as Commissioner of the NLRC, thereby leaving subject motions of private respondent unresolved. On November 29, 1994, petitioners appeal, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 006078-94, was resolved in the assailed Resolution of the of the Second Division of the NLRC; disposing, as follows: WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter below dated November 12, 1993 is hereby reversed and set aside and another one rendered, declaring the separation of Esther Reyes from service legal and valid. However, respondent is directed to pay the backwages of herein complainant from November 12, 1993 up to the date of the promulgation of this Resolution. Therefrom, both parties moved for reconsideration; petitioners assailing the award of backwages in favor of private respondent. On November 29, 1995, the same Second Division of NLRC rendered its challenged Decision, denying subject motions for reconsideration. Sometime in February 1996, the private respondent filed with NLRC a Motion for Execution, through the deciding Labor Arbiter. But until now, no writ of execution issued. Unfortunately for private respondent, she never interposed any appeal from NLRCs ruling, upholding the validity of her dismissal. It is therefore settled, beyond the reach of this courts power of review, that private respondents employment was validly terminated. On the part of petitioners, they have come here to question the award of backwages for the private respondent, whose dismissal has been upheld with finality. Before delving into and passing upon the propriety of the assailed award of backwages, which is the core of the Petition before us, the court takes note of the undisputed fact that private respondent was employed on a contract basis. Article 280