[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
96 views1 page

MILAGROS PANUNCILLO, Petitioner, Vs - CAP PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent. (G.R. No. 161305. February 9, 2007.)

Petitioner was dismissed by respondent company for violating its code of discipline. The labor arbiter found the dismissal valid but the NLRC reversed and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The CA then reversed the NLRC. Petitioner argued she was entitled to back wages from the NLRC decision until the CA reversal. The Supreme Court ruled that while the NLRC decision becomes final after 10 days, the adverse party can still challenge it in higher courts. It advised labor arbiters and the NLRC to exercise prudence and courtesy by not immediately enforcing decisions if they are likely to be overturned on appeal.

Uploaded by

Arlene Durban
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views1 page

MILAGROS PANUNCILLO, Petitioner, Vs - CAP PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent. (G.R. No. 161305. February 9, 2007.)

Petitioner was dismissed by respondent company for violating its code of discipline. The labor arbiter found the dismissal valid but the NLRC reversed and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The CA then reversed the NLRC. Petitioner argued she was entitled to back wages from the NLRC decision until the CA reversal. The Supreme Court ruled that while the NLRC decision becomes final after 10 days, the adverse party can still challenge it in higher courts. It advised labor arbiters and the NLRC to exercise prudence and courtesy by not immediately enforcing decisions if they are likely to be overturned on appeal.

Uploaded by

Arlene Durban
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MILAGROS PANUNCILLO, petitioner, vs . CAP PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent. [G.R. No. 161305.

February 9, 2007.]

FACTS:

Petitioner was dismissed by the respondent for violation of company’s Code of Discipline in which the
petitioner admits of such wrong doings. Petitioner contends that she should not be terminated before her
retirement, however, the company dismissed her anyway. Petitioner filed a complaint before the labor
arbiter but found that the dismissal was for a valid cause. On appeal, NLRC reversed the decision of the
Arbiter and held that dismissal was illegal and accordingly ordering the reinstatement to former position,
to pay full backwages, 13 th month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees. CA reversed the NLRC and held
that the dismissal was valid. The decision of the NLRC became final and executory after 10 calendar days
from the receipt by the parties pursuant to Art. 223 of the Labor Code. Respondent argues that she is
entitled to her full backwages from the date her compensation was withheld from her pursuant to the
decision of the NLRC reinstating her previous position, full backwages, etc., until the reversal of the NLRC
decision by the CA.

ISSUE:

SC RULING:

The order of the Arbiter for reinstatement is self-executory, however, NLRC’s order is not. There is still a
need for the issuance of writ of execution. If a Labor Arbiter does not issue a writ of execution of the
NLRC order for the reinstatement of an employee even if there is no restraining order, he could probably
be merely observing judicial courtesy, which is advisable "if there is a strong probability that the issues
before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the
proceedings in the lower court."

While under the sixth paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code, the decision of the NLRC becomes final
and executory after the lapse of ten calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties, the adverse party is
not precluded from assailing it via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals and
then to this Court via a Petition for Review under Rule 45. If during the pendency of the review no order is
issued by the courts enjoining the execution of a decision of the Labor Arbiter or NLRC which is favorable
to an employee, the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC must exercise extreme prudence and observe judicial
courtesy when the circumstances so warrant.

You might also like