Pfizer v. Velasco (G.R. No. 177467; March 9, 2011)

CASE DIGEST: PFIZER, INC. AND/OR REY GERARDO BACARRO, AND/OR FERDINAND CORTES, AND/OR ALFRED MAGALLON, AND/OR ARISTOTLE ARCE, Petitioners, vs. GERALDINE VELASCO, Respondent. (G.R. No. 177467; March 9, 2011).

FACTS: On 5 December 2003, the Labor Arbiter rendered its decision declaring the dismissal of Velasco, an employee of Pfizer, illegal, ordering her reinstatement with backwages and further awarding moral and exemplary damages with attorneys fees. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the same but deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages. Pfizer filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for the issuance of a writ ofcertiorariunder Rule 65 to annul and set aside the aforementioned NLRC issuances.In a Decision dated November 23, 2005, the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of respondents dismissal from employment.

Velasco filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the Court of Appeals resolved in the assailed Resolution dated October 23, 2006, wherein it affirmed the validity of Velasco's dismissal from employment but modified its earlier ruling by directing Pfizer to pay respondent her wages from the date of the Labor Arbiters Decision dated December 5, 2003 up to the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 23, 2005.

Pfizer filed the instant petition assailing the CA decision. In PFIZER's view, it should no longer be required to pay wages considering that it had already previously paid an enormous sum to respondent under the writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Did the CA committed a serious and reversible error when it ordered Pfizer to pay Velasco wages from the date of the Labor Arbiters decision ordering her reinstatement until November 23, 2005, when the Court of Appeals rendered its decision declaring Velascos dismissal valid?

HELD: Pfizer's previous payment to respondent of the amount ofP1,963,855.00 (representing her wages from December 5, 2003, or the date of the Labor Arbiter decision, until May 5, 2005) that was successfully garnished under the Labor Arbiters Writ of Execution dated May 26, 2005 cannot be considered in its favor.Not only was this sum legally due to respondent under prevailing jurisprudence but also this circumstance highlighted Pfizer's unreasonable delay in complying with the reinstatement order of the Labor Arbiter. It only required respondent to report for work on July 1, 2005, almost two years from the time the order of reinstatement was handed down in the Labor Arbiters Decision dated December 5, 2003.In the seminal case of Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court held that an award or order of reinstatement is immediately self-executory without the need for the issuance of a writ of execution in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code. In the case at bar, Pfizer did not immediately admit respondent back to work which, according to the law, should have been done as soon as an order or award of reinstatement is handed down by the Labor Arbiter without need for the issuance of a writ of execution.Thus, respondent was entitled to the wages paid to her under the aforementioned writ of execution.

In any case, Pfizer implores the Court to annul the award of backwages and separation pay as well as to require respondent to refund the amount that she was able to collect by way of garnishment from Pfizer as her accrued salaries, considering the reversal of the decision of the Labor Arbiter by the CA. However, this is without merit, since the prevailing principle is that even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. DENIED.