Consolidated Distillers of the Far East Inc.

vs/ Rogel Zaragoza

G.R. No. 229302
June 20, 2018

Facts:
After the finality of the resolution of the Court in G.R. 196038 on March 30, 2012, finding
Rogel illegally dismissed by Condis, and ordering the former’s reinstatement and payment
of back wages, Rogel moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution against Condis for
his reinstatement, and the payment of full back wages, accrued salaries and allowances as
of December 3, 2012, less the P454,986.98 that was already released to him by the LA
pending appeal (Execution Proceedings). Condis opposed the motion and argued that its
execution of the Asset Purchase Agreement with Emperador Distillers, Inc was a
supervening event that made it impossible to reinstate Rogel in his former position. The LA
ruled in favor of Rogel. Condis filed a petition for extraordinary remedy with the NLRC
which granted the petition and declared the LA’s resolution null and void. In a petition for
certiorari filed by Rogel, the CA affirmed the NLRC but with modification that the back
wages should be computed from the date of illegal dismissal until the finality of the
decision of the CA, and separation pay computed from the date of employment until finality
of the CA Decision. Hence this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA is correct in reckoning the period of back wages and separation pay
until finality of the decision of this case and not until the time the supervening event and
legal impossibility to reinstate arose.

Ruling:
Yes, the CA is correct in ruling that Condis is liable for back wages and separation pay until
the finality of the decision awarding separation pay. Wherefore, premises considered, the
Petition for Review is hereby partly GRANTED.

Ratio Decidendi:

In the case of Bani Rural Bank Inc. vs De Guzman, the Court held that [w]hen there is an
order of separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement or when the reinstatement aspect is
waived or subsequently ordered in light of a supervening event making the award of
reinstatement no longer possible), the employment relationship is terminated only upon
the finality of the decision ordering the separation pay. The finality of the decision cuts-off
the employment relationship and represents the final settlement of the rights and
obligations of the parties against each other."

Here, the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, which Condis does not question,
was made subsequent to the finality of the Decision in the Illegal Dismissal Case (G.R. No.
196038). Condis cannot therefore evade its liability to Rogel for backwages and separation
pay computed until the finality of this Decision which affirms the order granting separation
pay.