G.R. No.

107225 June 2, 1995

ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ALBERTO U !n" A#RIAN U,
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GERONIMO MANUEL,
ARNULFO #IA$, JAIME CARUNUNGAN !n" BENJAMIN RIN#ON, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
There are three issues to be resolved in this special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, namely: (a) whether a writ of eecution is still
necessary to enforce the !abor "rbiter#s order of immediate reinstatement pendin$
appeal% (b) whether dismissal for cause results in the forfeiture of the employee#s
ri$ht to a &'th month pay% and, (c) whether the award of attorney#s fees is proper in
the instant case.
"rchilles (anufacturin$ Corporation ("RC)*!!+, for brevity), "lberto -u and "drian
-u are the petitioners, the latter two (.) bein$ the Chairman and the /ice01resident of
"RC)*!!+,, respectively. 1rivate respondents 2eronimo (anuel, "rnulfo 3ia4,
5aime Carunun$an and 6en7amin Rindon were employed by "RC)*!!+, as laborers
in its steel factory located in 6aran$ay 1andayan, (eycauayan, 6ulacan, each
receivin$ a daily wa$e of 186.99.
1
"RC)*!!+, was maintainin$ a bun:house in the wor: area which served as restin$
place for its wor:ers includin$ private respondents. *n &8;; a maulin$ incident nearly
too: place involvin$ a relative of an employee. "s a result "RC)*!!+, prohibited its
wor:ers from brin$in$ any member of their family to the bun:house. 6ut despite this
prohibition, private respondents continued to brin$ their respective families to the
bun:house, causin$ annoyance and discomfort to the other wor:ers.
2
This was
brou$ht to the attention of "RC)*!!+,.
<n && (ay &889 the mana$ement ordered private respondent to remove their
families from the bun:house and to eplain their violation of the company rule.
1rivate respondents remove their families from the premises but failed to report to
the mana$ement as re=uired% instead, they absented themselves from &> to &; (ay
&889. Conse=uently, on &; (ay &889, "RC)*!!+, terminated their employment for
abandonment and for violation of the company rule re$ardin$ the use of the
bun:house.
%
1rivate respondents filed a complaint for ille$al dismissal. <n &9 5uly &88& the !abor
"rbiter found the dismissal of private respondents ille$al and ordered their
reinstatement as well as the payment to them the bac:wa$es, proportionate &'th
month pay for the year &889 and attorney#s
fees.
&
"RC)*!!+, appealed.
<n &9 ,eptember &88& private respondent filed with public respondent ?ational
!abor Relations Commission a motion for the issuance of a writ of eecution for their
immediate reinstatement, pendin$ appeal, either physically or in the company payroll.
<n &8 ,eptember &88& "RC)*!!+, opposed the motion.
,ince no action was ta:en by ?!RC on the motion of &9 ,eptember &88&, private
respondents filed a similar motion on &5 5uly &88.. 6oth motions however have
remained unresolved.
<n && "u$ust &88. ?!RC vacated and set aside the decision of the !abor "rbiter
and ruled that the dismissal of private respondents was valid since they wilfully
disobeyed a lawful order of their employer re=uirin$ them to eplain their infraction of
a company rule. *n the dispute part of its decision, however, ?!RC ordered
"RC)*!!+, to pay private respondents their @withheld@ salaries from &8 ,eptember
&88& when it filed its opposition to the motion for issuance of a writ of eecution until
the promul$ation of the ?!RC 3ecision (&& "u$ust &88.) on the $round that the
order of reinstatement of the !abor "rbiter was immediately eecutory, even pendin$
appeal. "nd since "RC)*!!+, in its opposition alle$ed that actual reinstatement was
no lon$er possible as it would affect the peace and order situation in the steel factory,
clearly, "RC)*!!+, had opted for payroll reinstatement of private respondents.
?!RC also ordered "RC)*!!+, to pay their proportionate &'th month pay for &889
and 1&.,'5&.'9 representin$ &9A of the total 7ud$ment award of 1&.',5&'.99 as
attorney#s fees.
5
Their motion for partial reconsideration havin$ been denied by public respondent in
its resolution of ; ,eptember &88., petitioners filed the instant petition prayin$ that
the =uestioned ?!RC decision of && "u$ust &88. as well as its resolution of ;
,eptember &88. be partially annulled in connection with the award of @withheld@
salaries, proportionate &'th month pay and attorney#s fees.
"s re$ards the first issue, i.e., whether a writ of eecution is still necessary to enforce
the !abor "rbiter#s order of immediate reinstatement even when pendin$ appeal, we
a$ree with petitioners that it is necessary. The third para$raph of "rt. ..' of the
!abor Code provides B
*n any event, the decision of the !abor "rbiter reinstatin$ a dismissed
or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is
concerned, shall be immediately eecutory, even pendin$ appeal. The
employee shall either be admitted bac: to wor: under the same terms
and conditions prevailin$ prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the
option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The postin$ of
the bond by the employer shall not stay the eecution for
reinstatement provided herein.
Ce have fully eplained the le$al basis for this conclusion in Maranaw Hotel Resort
Corporation (Century Park Sheraton Manila) v. NLRC and Gina G. Castro
'
thus B
*t must be stressed, however, that althou$h the reinstatement aspect
of the decision is iediately e!ecutory, it does not follow that it is
sel"#e!ecutory. There must be a writ of eecution which may be issued
otu proprio or on motion of an interested party. "rticle ..> of the
!abor Code provides:
"rt. ..>. +ecution of decisions, orders or awards. B
(a) The ,ecretary of !abor and +mployment or any
Re$ional 3irector, the Commission or any !abor
"rbiter, or med0"rbiter or voluntary arbitrator may, otu
proprio or on otion o" any interested party, issue a
writ of eecution on a 7ud$ment within five (5) years
from the date it becomes final and eecutory . . . .
The second para$raph of ,ection &, Rule D/*** of the ?ew Rules of
1rocedure of the ?!RC also provides:
The !abor "rbiter, 1<+" "dministrator, or the Re$ional 3irector, or his
duly authori4ed hearin$ officer of ori$in shall, otu proprio or upon
otion o" any interested party, issue a writ of eecution on a 7ud$ment
only within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and
eecutory . . . . ?o motion for eecution shall be entertained nor a writ
be issued unless the !abor "rbiter is in possession of the records of
the case which shall include an entry of 7ud$ment.
*n the absence . . . of an order for the issuance of a writ of eecution
on the reinstatement aspect of the decision of the !abor "rbiter, the
petitioner was under no le$al obli$ation to admit bac: to wor: the
private respondent under the terms and conditions prevailin$ prior to
her dismissal or, at the petitioner#s option, to merely reinstate her in
the payroll. "n option is a ri$ht of election to eercise a privile$e, and
the option in "rticle ..' of the !abor code is eclusively $ranted to the
employer. The event that $ives rise for its eercise is not the
reinstatement decree of the !abor "rbiter, but the writ for its eecution
commandin$ the employer to reinstate the employee, while the final
act which compels the employer to eercise the option is the service
upon it of the writ of eecution when, instead of admittin$ the
employee bac: to his wor:, the employee chooses to reinstate the
employee in the payroll only. *f the employer does not eercise this
option, it must forthwith admit the employee bac: to wor:, otherwise it
may be punished for contempt.
*n the case at bench, there was no occasion for petitioners to eercise their option
under "rt. ..' of the !abor Code in connection with the reinstatement aspect of the
decision of the !abor "rbiter. The motions of private respondents for the issuance of
a writ of eecution were not acted upon by ?!RC. *t was not shown that respondent
eerted efforts to have their motions resolved. They are deemed to have abandoned
their motions for eecution pendin$ appeal. They cannot now as: that the writ of
eecution be issued since their dismissal was found to be for cause.
<n the second issue, which refers to the propriety of the award of a &'th month pay,
para$raph 6 of the Revised 2uidelines on the *mplementation of the &'th (onth 1ay
!aw (1. 3. ;5&) provides that @(a)n employee who has resi$ned or whose services
were terminated at any time before the payment of the &'th month pay is entitled to
this monetary benefit in proportion to the len$th of time he wor:ed durin$ the year,
rec:oned from the time he started wor:in$ durin$ the calendar year up to the time of
his resi$nation or termination from the
service . . . The payment of the &'th month pay may be demanded by the employee
upon the cessation of employer0employee relationship. This is consistent with the
principle of e=uity that as the employer can re=uire the employee to clear himself of
all liabilities and property accountability, so can the employee demand the payment
of all benefits due him upon the termination of the relationship.@
Eurthermore, ,ec. > of the ori$inal *mplementin$ Rules of 1.3. ;5& mandates
employers to pay their employees a &'th month pay not later than the .>th of
3ecember every year provided that they have wor:ed for at least one (&) month
durin$ a calendar year. *n effect, this statutory benefit is automatically vested in the
employee who has at least wor:ed for one month durin$ the calendar year. "s
correctly stated by the ,olicitor 2eneral, such benefit may not be lost or forfeited
even in the event of the employee#s subse=uent dismissal for cause without violatin$
his property ri$hts.
Cith respect to the third issue, the disputed attorney#s fees can only be assessed in
cases of unlawful withholdin$ of wa$es.
7
*t cannot be said that petitioners were $uilty
of unlawfully withholdin$ private respondents# salaries since, as earlier discussed, the
occasion never arose for them to eercise that option under "rt. ..' of the !abor
Code. Clearly, the award of attorney#s fees is baseless.
C)+R+E<R+, the instant petition is partly $ranted. The challen$ed 3ecision of the
?ational !abor Relations Commission dated && "u$ust &88. is (<3*E*+3 by
deletin$ that portion orderin$ petitioners to pay private respondents their salaries
from &8 ,eptember &88& to .9 ,eptember &88. as well as that portion awardin$
&9A of the total 7ud$ment award as attorney#s fees for lac: of le$al and factual basis.
*n other respects, the 3ecision is "EE*R(+3.
,< <R3+R+3.
Padilla$ %avide$ &r. and 'apunan$ &&.$ concur.
(uiason$ &.$ is on leave.