G.R. No.

195227 April 21, 2014

FROILAN M. BERGONIO, JR. et. al VS. SOUTH EAST ASIAN AIRLINES and IRENE
DORNIER

Labor Code; Art. 223 (par.3) of the Labor Code; Reinstatement of an Employee. The
reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiters Decision shall immediately be executory, 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 employer is obliged to pay the
dismissed employees salary if he refuses to reinstate until actual reinstatement or reversal by a higher tribunal.

BRION, J.:

FACTS:

On April 30, 2004, a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal dismissal and illegal
suspension was filed by the petitioners against respondents South East Asian Airlines (SEAIR) and
Irene Dornier as SEAIRs President. On May 31, 2005, the LA found the petitioners illegally
dismissed and ordered the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with full back wages. There was
failure on the part of the Respondent to reinstate the said employees, prompting the application for
the Writ of Execution, the latter was subsequently granted by the court in favor of the petitioners.

On February 21, 2006, respondents issued a Memorandum directing the petitioners to report
on work before February 24, 2006. However, petitioners failed to report to work alleging that only
one of them received the Memorandum on February 23, 2005. The Memorandum also instructed
them to report to Clark, Pampanga instead of NAIA-Domestic Airport in Pasay which according to
the petitioners was a violation of Art. 223 (par.3) of the Labor Code as it changes the terms and
conditions of the petitioners employment prior to the dismissal.

On May 31, 2005, respondents appealed to the NLRC which was subsequently dismissed for
failure to perfect an appeal. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari which was granted by the
Court of Appeals (CA), the latter ruling in favor of the respondents and declaring the dismissal valid.
The CA also ruled that the delay of the execution of the reinstatement order was not due to the
respondents unjustified act but to petitioners refusal to comply with the February 21, 2006
Memorandum of return-to-work. This led the petitioners to file a petition for review in the Supreme
Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent SEAIR complied with the LA Decision on the
reinstatement of employees which will negate petitioners claim for accrued backwages?

HELD: Negative. As provided for in Art. 223(3) of the Labor Code, the reinstatement of an
employee found illegally dismissed is immediately executory even during the pendency of the
employers appeal from the decision. Under this provision, the employer must reinstate the
employee either by physically admitting him under the conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal,
and paying his wages, or within the option of the employer to reinstate him in the payroll.

A dismissed employee whose case was favored by the LA is entitled to receive wages
pending appeal upon reinstatement, which reinstatement is immediately executory. Unless the
appellate tribunal issues a restraining order, the LA is duty bound to implement the order of
reinstatement and the employer has no option but to comply with it. Such reinstatement is self-
executory and need no Writ of Execution for its enforcement.

Meanwhile, the delay for the reinstatement pending appeal was due to the respondents fault.
First, they filed several pleadings to suspend the execution order of the LAs decision for the
reinstatement order. Second, there was no sufficient notification to the petitioners of their intent to
reinstate them, neither did respondents give them ample opportunity to comply with the return-to-
work directive. Therefore, the delay was due to all acts made by the respondent, making them liable
to reinstate the petitioners and pay the necessary wages from the time of dismissal up to the time of
its reversal by the higher tribunal.