TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT RELIEFS FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL-REINSTATEMENT PENDING APPEAL

1. MT. CARMEL COLLEGE VS. JOCELYN RESUENA, EDDIE VILLALON,SYLVIA SEDAYON and
ZONSAYDA EMNACE

DOCTRINES/PRINCIPLES:
1. Art. 223 of the Labor Code provides that reinstatement is immediately executory even
pending appeal only when the Labor Arbiter himself ordered the reinstatement.
2. Art. 224 of the Labor Code applies when the order of reinstatement was first decided upon
appeal to the NLRC. In other words, the Labor Arbiter himself did not order reinstatement.
3. Art. 279 of the Labor Code provides thatbackwages are to be computed from the time of
illegal dismissal until reinstatement or upon petitioners payment of separation pay to
respondents if reinstatement is not longer feasible.

FACTS:
PetitionerMt. Carmel College is a private educational institution and respondents were its
employees. Respondents were dismissed for joining the protest action against the school
administration. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found that they were not illegally dismissed but ordered that they
be awarded 13th month pay, separation pay and attorneys fees. The NLRC reversed the findings of the
LA finding the termination of the respondents as illegal and ordering the payment of backwages of
respondents.It further directed the reinstatement of respondents by way of payment of separation pay,
with backwages. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner is appealing not the judgment of the NLRC but the manner of execution of the same.
Petitioner argues that the CA erred in upholding the LA and the NLRC that the award for backwages goes
beyond the period May 15, 1998 to May 25, 1999 on the supposition that reinstatement is self-
executory and does not need a writ of execution for its enforcement.Petitioner avers that the LA went
beyond the terms of the NLRC Decision, as affirmed by the CA, and erroneously used as bases
inapplicable law and jurisprudence in the execution of the same.Petitioner contends that the award of
backwages subject to execution is limited to the period prior to the appeal and does not include the
period during the pendency of the appeal, on the contention that reinstatement during appeal is
warranted only when the Labor Arbiter rules that the dismissed employee should be reinstated.

ISSUES:
1.Whetherreinstatement in the case is self-executory and does not need a writ of execution for
its enforcement.
2. Whether the continuing award of backwages is proper.

RULING:
1.No(though the court sees no cogent reason as to the relevance of a discussion of this issue
only that petitioner raised it as an issue).The court states that the above findings will not affect the
award of backwages for the period beyond May 25, 1999.
Article 224 applies in the given case since the order of reinstatement was first decided upon
appeal to the NLRC and affirmed with finality by the CA.
2. Yes. The court found out that there is a conflict between the dispositive portion of the
falloand the body of the decision. The fallo stated that respondents were illegally dismissed and must
therefore be ordered reinstated with payment of backwages from the time were illegally dismissed up to
the time of their actual reinstatement. In view thereof, the court declared that the fallocontrols.
 Applying Article 279 of the Labor Code, the court emphasized that backwages are to be
computed from the time of illegal dismissal until reinstatement or upon petitioners payment of
separation pay to respondents if reinstatement is not longer feasible.