FROILAN M. BERGONIO, JR., DEAN G. PELAEZ, CRISANTO O. GEONGO, WARLITO O.

JANAYA,
SALVADOR VILLAR, JR., RONALDO CAFIRMA, RANDY LUCAR, ALBERTO ALBUERA, DENNIS
NOPUENTE and ALLAN SALVACION, Petitioners,
vs.
SOUTH EAST ASIAN AIRLINES and IRENE DORNIER,
G.R. No. 195227 April 21, 2014
Brion, J.

FACTS:

On May 31, 2005, the Labor Arbiter (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.

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 respondent’s unjustified act but to petitioners’ refusal to comply with the
February 21, 2006 Memorandum of return-to-work.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent SEAIR complied with the LA Decision on the reinstatement of
employees.

HELD:
                  
No. The respondents filed several pleadings to suspend the execution of the LA’s reinstatement
order. These pleadings show a determined effort on the respondents’ part to prevent or
suspend the execution of the reinstatement pending appeal. Respondents did not sufficiently
notify the petitioners of their intent to actually reinstate them neither did the respondents give
them ample opportunity to comply with the return-to-work directive.