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, v. GERALDINE VELASCO, Respondent. (G.R. No. 177467; March 9, 2011).

FACTS: Private respondent Geraldine L. Velasco was terminated from employment with petitioner PFIZER, INC. The Labor Arbiter rendered its decision declaring the dismissal of Velasco illegal, ordering her reinstatement. PFIZER appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but its appeal was denied. The CA upheld the validity of respondents dismissal from employment but 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 Velasco's dismissal valid.

ISSUE: Did the CA commit a serious but 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: The order of reinstatement is immediately executory. The unjustified refusal of the employer to reinstate a dismissed employee entitles the latter to payment of his salaries effective from the time the employer failed to reinstate him despite the issuance of a writ of execution. Unless there is a restraining order issued, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the order of reinstatement. In the case at bar, no restraining order was granted. 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 writ of execution. DENIED.