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 Arbiter ’s 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 employee’s salary
if he refuses to reinstate until actual reinstatement or reversal by a higher tribunal.

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 SEAIR’s 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 respondent’s 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 back wages?

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
employer’s 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 LA’s 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.
 FROILAN M. BERGONIO, JR., et al. vs. SOUTH EAST ASIAN AIRLINES and IRENE DORNIER
G.R. No. 195227
April 21, 2014

FACTS:
- Bergonio, et al. filed before the LA a complaint for illegal dismissal and illegal suspension
with prayer for reinstatement against South East Asian Airlines (SEAIR) and Irene Dornier
as SEAIR’s President.
- LA found the petitioners illegally dismissed and ordered the respondents, among others,
to immediately reinstate the petitioners with full backwages.
- Upon motion, a Notice of Garnishment was issued to the respondents’ depositary bank
–the CA rendered its decision (on the illegal dismissal ruling of the LA) partly granting
the respondents’ petition. The CA declared the petitioners’ dismissal valid and awarded
them nominal damages for the respondents’ failure to observe due process.
- On January 31, 2008, the petitioners filed with the LA an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the
Immediate Release of the Garnished Amount.
- The LA granted the petitioners’ motion; it directed the bank to release the garnished
amount.
- The LA found valid and meritorious the respondents’ claim for accrued wages in view of
the respondents’ refusal to reinstate the petitioners despite the final and executory
nature of the reinstatement aspect of its (LA’s) May 31, 2005 decision.
- On July 16, 200, the NLRC affirmed in toto the LA’s March 13, 2008 order. The NLRC
afterwards denied the respondents’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
- SEAIR assailed the decision and September 29, 2009 resolution of the NLRC via a petition
for certiorari filed with the CA.
- The CA granted the respondents’ petition and reversed, for grave abuse of discretion,
the NLRC’s July 16, 2008 decision that affirmed the LA’s order to release the garnished
amount.
- Hence, Bergonio, et al. filed a petition and argued that the CA gravely erred when it
ruled, contrary to Article 223, paragraph 3 of the Labor Code, that the computation of
their accrued wages stopped when they failed to report for work on February 24, 2006.

ISSUE:
What are the jurisdictional Limitations of the Court’s Rule 45 review of the CA’s Rule 65
decision in labor cases?

RULING:
- In a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, what SC reviews are the legal errors that
the CA may have committed in the assailed decision, in contrast with the review for
jurisdictional errors that SC undertakes in an original certiorari action.
In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case taken under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, SC examined the CA decision in the context that it determined the
presence or the absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and
not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits of the case, was correct.
- The Court’s jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari is limited to
resolving only questions of law.

The present petition essentially raises the question – whether the petitioners may
recover the accrued wages prior to the CA’s reversal of the LA’s May 31, 2005 decision.
This is a question of law that falls well within the Court’s power in a Rule 45 petition.

However, this is inextricably linked with the largely factual issue of whether the accrued
wages should be computed until December 17, 2008 when the CA reversed the illegal
dismissal findings of the LA or only until February 24, 2006 when the petitioners were
supposed to report for work per the February 21, 2006 Memorandum. In either case,
the determination of this factual issue presupposes another factual issue, i.e., whether
the delay in the execution of the reinstatement order was due to the respondents’ fault.
As questions of fact, they are proscribed by our Rule 45 jurisdiction; SC generally cannot
address these factual issues except to the extent necessary to determine whether the CA
correctly found the NLRC in grave abuse of discretion in affirming the release of the
garnished amount despite the respondents’ issuance of and the petitioners’ failure to
comply with the February 21, 2006 return-to-work Memorandum.

The jurisdictional limitations of SC’s Rule 45 review of the CA’s Rule 65 decision in labor
cases, notwithstanding, SC resolved the petition’s factual issues for it found legal errors
in the CA’s decision.