Aris (Phils.) Inc. vs. NLRC [G.R. No. 905501.
August 05, 1991]
Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., J.
FACTS:
On 11 April 1988, private respondents, who were employees of petitioner, aggrieved by
management’s failure to attend to their complaints concerning their working surroundings which
had become detrimental and hazardous, requested for a grievance conference. Private
respondents with NLRC of NCR lost no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioner. After due trial, Aris (Phils.), Inc. is hereby ordered to reinstate within ten (10) days
from receipt private respondents to their former respective positions or any substantial equivalent
positions if already filled up, without loss of seniority right and privileges but with limited back
wages of six (6) months. Private respondents filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution
pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715. Petitioner and complainants filed their own Appeals.
Petitioner filed an Opposition to the motion for execution alleging that Section 12 of R.A. No.
6715 on execution pending appeal cannot be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of
its effectivity because it does not expressly provide that it shall be given retroactive effect and to
give retroactive effect to Section 12 thereof to pending cases would not only result in the
imposition of an additional obligation on petitioner but would also dilute its right to appeal since
it would be burdened with the consequences of reinstatement without the benefit of a final
judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the provision under Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 is constitutional.
HELD:
YES. Petition was dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
RATIO:
Presumption against unconstitutionality.
The validity of the questioned law is not only supported and sustained by the foregoing
considerations. As contended by the Solicitor General, it is a valid exercise of the police power
of the State.
Certainly, if the right of an employer to freely discharge his employees is subject to regulation by
the State, basically in the exercise of its permanent police power on the theory that the
preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State, that is more vital than the
preservation of corporate profits.
Then, by and pursuant to the same power, the State may authorize an immediate implementation,
pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated employee since that saving act
is designed to stop, although temporarily since the appeal may be decided in favor of the
appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of the dismissed or
separated employee and its family.
Moreover, the questioned interim rules of the NLRC can validly be given retroactive effect. They
are procedural or remedial in character, promulgated pursuant to the authority vested upon it
under Article 218(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. Settled is the rule that
procedural laws may be given retroactive effect. There are no vested rights in rules of procedure.
A remedial statute may be made applicable to cases pending at the time of its enactment.
ARIS (PHIL.) INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 90501 August 5, 1991
Facts:
On 11 April 1988, private respondents, who were employees of petitioner, aggrieved by
management's failure to attend to their complaints concerning their working surroundings which
had become detrimental and hazardous, requested for a grievance conference. As none was
arranged, and believing that their appeal would be fruitless, they grouped together after the end
of their work that day with other employees and marched directly to the management's office to
protest its long silence and inaction on their complaints.
On 12 April 1988, the management issued a memorandum to each of the private respondents,
who were identified by the petitioner's supervisors as the most active participants in the "rally",
requiring them to explain why they should not be terminated from the service for their conduct.
Despite their explanation, private respondents were dismissed for violation of company rules and
regulations, more specifically of the provisions on security and public order and on inciting or
participating in illegal strikes or concerted actions.
Private respondents lost no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner and
Mr. Gavino Bayan with the regional office of the NLRC at the National Capital Region, Manila.
After due trial the labor arbiter ordered Aris (Phils.), Inc. to reinstate Leodegario de Guzman and
company to their former respective positions or any substantial equivalent positions if already
filled up, without loss of seniority right and privileges.
On 19 July 1989, de Guzman and company filed a Motion For Issuance of a Writ of Execution
pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 which provides that “In any event, the decision of the
Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, in so far as the reinstatement aspect
is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even 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 posting of a
bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided therein."
On 21 July 1989, petitioner filed its Appeal. On 26 July 1989, the complainants, except Flor
Rayos del Sol, filed a Partial Appeal. On 10 August 1989, complainant Flor Rayos del Sol filed a
Partial Appeal. On 29 August 1989, petitioner filed an Opposition to the motion for execution
alleging that Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 on execution pending appeal cannot be applied
retroactively to cases pending at the time of its effectivity. Petitioner submitted a Rejoinder to the
Reply on 5 September 1989. On 5 October 1989, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order granting the
motion for execution and the issuance of a partial writ of execution "as far as reinstatement of
herein complainants is concerned in consonance with the provision of Section 2 of the rules
particularly the last sentence thereof."
Unable to accept the above Order, petitioner filed the instant petition on October 1989.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction when it relied on the constitutionality of the amendment introduced by Section 12
of Republic Act No. 6715 to Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (PD. No. 442, as
amended) and allowing execution pending appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a
labor arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee and of Section 2 of the NLRC Interim
Rules on Appeals under R.A. No. 6715 implementing the same. It also questions the validity of
the Transitory Provision (Section 17) of the said Interim Rules.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRC and dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The
SC held that execution pending appeal is interlinked with the right to appeal. One cannot be
divorced from the other. The latter may be availed of by the losing party or a party who is not
satisfied with a judgment, while the former may be applied for by the prevailing party during the
pendency of the appeal. The right to appeal, however, is not a constitutional, natural or inherent
right. It is a statutory privilege of statutory origin and, therefore, available only if granted or
provided by statute. The law may then validly provide limitations or qualifications thereto or
relief to the prevailing party in the event an appeal is interposed by the losing party. Execution
pending appeal is one such relief long recognized in this jurisdiction. The Revised Rules of Court
allows execution pending appeal and the grant thereof is left to the discretion of the court upon
good reasons to be stated in a special order.
.
Before its amendment by Section 12 of R.A. No. 6716, Article 223 of the Labor Code already
allowed execution of decisions of the NLRC pending their appeal to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. These provisions are the quintessence of the aspirations of the workingman for
recognition of his role in the social and economic life of the nation, for the protection of his
rights, and the promotion of his welfare. The charge then that the challenged law as well as the
implementing rule is unconstitutional is absolutely baseless. Laws are presumed constitutional.
