1.

SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4TH
Division) and GORGONIO MONGCAL, respondents. [G.R. No. 164118.
February 9, 2010.]
FACTS:
 Complainant alleged that he was employed as a pay loader operator by
the respondent company;
 That a dump truck driver of the respondent company for truck No. 25,
requested complainant to load his dump truck with construction
materials and complainant willingly obliged to do his job;
 That it was later on discovered that said Aldrin Rasote had diverted the
delivery of said materials loaded to another person and as a result of
this incident, complainant was dismissed from his job effective 30 June
1995.
 Complainant denies having a hand nor was he involved in the act
committed by truck driver Aldrin Rasote.
 Complainant further alleged that his dismissal from work was effected
without any valid ground and violative of the rules on due process; that
he was not informed of the reasons for his termination from the service
nor was he given an opportunity to explain his side, and hence, he was
deprived of his means of livelihood without due process of law. Hence,
he prays for reinstatement, backwages, and separation pay if
reinstatement is no longer feasible.
 The respondents aver that complainant was validly dismissed from his
job based on loss of confidence due to commission of offense
constituting act of dishonesty and flagrant violation of respondent's
policy.

Labor Arbiter Ruling:

Ruled in favor of petitioner by dismissing the complaint but ordered
petitioner to pay herein private respondent P1,000.00 for failure to observe
due process requirements of law.

NLRC Ruling:
Overturned the Labor Arbiter's ruling and issued a Decision setting aside
the appealed decision and another one entered ordering respondent
Sargasso Construction and Development Corporation to pay the
complainant a total of Php205, 010.00.

CA Ruling:
The assailed Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations
Commission are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION: the separation

1
pay should be computed from the date of private respondent's
employment until the finality of this decision while his back wages should
be computed from the time of his alleged dismissal up to the finality of this
decision, and in both cases, using his monthly salary of P3,380.00 as basis of
computation.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the CA committed grave error in holding that complainant was
illegally dismissed?

RULING: The Court finds the petition unmeritorious.

The findings of the Labor Arbiter were not overturned by the NLRC or
the CA, but the two higher courts interpreted the very same evidence
differently. The long-standing rule is that the existence of a conspiracy must
be proved by clear, direct and convincing evidence. A perusal of the record
shows that the NLRC and the CA correctly ruled that petitioner's theory of
conspiracy had not been sufficiently established.

Sargasso Construction failed to prove that complainant’s actions was

dishonest. Hence, his dismissal was not justified. Under Article 279 of the
Labor Code, an illegally dismissed employee "shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his
full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement." In addition
to full backwages, the Court has also repeatedly ruled that in cases where
reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations, then
separation pay may be awarded instead of reinstatement.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is dismissed. The

Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 27, 2004 and
May 28, 2004, respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 70991 are AFFIRMED.
Petitioner is ORDERED to pay respondent Gorgonio Mongcal:
(a) separation pay in the amount equivalent to one (1) month pay for every
year of service; and
(b) backwages, computed from the time compensation of respondent
Mongcal was withheld from him when he was unjustly terminated, up to
the time of payment thereof.

2
 For this purpose, the records of this case are hereby REMANDED to
the Labor Arbiter for proper computation of said awards. Costs against
petitioner.

2. ROSALIE L. GARGOLES, petitioner, vs. REYLITA S. DEL ROSARIO,

DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE JAY ANNE'S ONE
HOUR PHOTO SHOP, respondent. [G.R. No. 158583. September 10,
2014.]
FACTS:
 The petitioner started working as an "all-around employee" at Jay-
Anne's One Hour Photo Shop, the proprietress of which was respondent
Reylita S. Del Rosario.
 On March 28, 1998, the petitioner received a letter terminating her
employment for dishonesty. As a result, she lodged a complaint for
illegal dismissal, seeking her reinstatement and backwages.
 To answer the complaint for illegal dismissal, Del Rosario laid out that it
was discovered that complainant, tampered with the daily printer's
production reports/sales, enriching herself.

Labor Arbiter Ruling:

Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The aforesaid dishonest act(s)
committed by the complainant logically triggered an erosion of the trust
reposed upon him [sic] by his [sic] employer and jurisprudence is explicit on
the point that when an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his
employer has ample reason to distrust him, a labor tribunal cannot deny
the employer the authority to dismiss him.

NLRC Ruling:
Affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

CA Ruling:
Affirmed the NLRC’s decision. However, private respondent, having violated
petitioner's right to due process, it is ordered to pay the petitioner the sum
of P5,000.00, as indemnity.

ISSUE: W/N there is a substantial evidence showing the existence of just

cause for petitioner’s dismissal?

RULING: The petition lacks merit.

3
 The just and valid causes for the dismissal of an employee, as
enumerated in Article 282 of the Labor Code, include:
(a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with her
work;
(b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of her duties;
(c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in her by
her employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of
her employer or any immediate member of her family or her duly
authorized representative; and
(e) other causes analogous to the foregoing.

The dishonesty imputed to the petitioner included the making of

double entries in the production reports and thereby enriching herself by
pocketing the extra cash generated from the double entries. The
production reports containing the double entries were presented as
evidence; and her double entries were confirmed in the affidavit executed
by Redelito Caranay, Jr., her co-employee.

The petitioner argues that she did not need to dispute the charge of
dishonesty or theft of her employer's funds because she had the
presumption of innocence in her favor. The argument is untenable. It is
true that every person is entitled to be presumed innocent of wrongdoing.
The objective of the presumption has been to lay the burden of proof on
the shoulders of the alleger of wrongdoing.

But the presumption, which is disputable, by no means excuses the

employee charged with wrongdoing from answering and defending herself
once the presumption has been overcome by a showing to the contrary.
The failure of the employee to rebut or disprove the proof of wrongdoing
then establishes the charge against her. This is especially true in a case for
dismissal grounded on loss of confidence or breach of trust, in which the
employer may proceed to dismiss the erring employee once the employer
becomes morally convinced that she was guilty of a breach of trust and
confidence. Based on the record, the petitioner did not sufficiently
contradict or rebut the charge of dishonesty.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of

Appeals promulgated on September 27, 2002 subject to the
MODIFICATION that the indemnity of P5,000.00 thereby granted to the
petitioner is DELETED; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

4
 3. FONTANA DEVELOPMENT CORP., DENNIS PAK as General Manager,
PASTOR ISAAC as Director of Human Resources, CHRIS CHENG * as
Deputy Group Financial Controller, JESUS CHUA, Representative
MICHAEL FELICIANO, ALMA EREDIANO, LEILANI VALIENTE, MAN
CHOI as Group Financial Controller, and JAIME VILLAREAL as Chief
Engineer, petitioners, vs. SASCHA VUKASINOVIC, respondent. [G.R.
No. 222424. September 21, 2016.]
FACTS:
 Respondent Sascha Vukasinovic was hired by petitioner Fontana
Development Corporation (FDC) as its Director for Business
Development for one year. His employment was renewed for another
year at the end of his first contract.
 Sometime in May 2010, he allegedly received a text message from one
Jenny Mallari (Mallari) informing him that Nestor Dischoso (Dischoso)
and Chief Hotel Engineer Jaime Villareal (Engr. Villareal), both officers of
petitioner FDC, were receiving commissions from company transactions.
 Thereafter, respondent met with Mallari and offered her money in
exchange for evidence that will support her allegations. Mallari handed
over to respondent a photocopy of a check issued to Engr. Villareal, as
proof of receiving commission. The check, however, had an alteration so
respondent asked Mallari to execute an affidavit and provide more
proof. Respondent then paid Mallari the total amount of fourteen
thousand pesos (P14,000) on different occasions.
 On June 15, 2010, FDC's Safety and Security Department brought Engr.
Villareal and Mallari to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Office
for questioning. During the inquiry, Mallari denied that Engr. Villareal
asked for commissions from her and revealed that she merely fabricated
the story against Engr. Villareal so that she can ask money from
respondent.
 On October 2, 2010, respondent received a Show Cause/Preventive
Suspension Order from petitioner FDC's Human Resources Department,
informing him of the complaint filed by Engr. Villareal and directing him
to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for
violating the provisions of the Company Code of Conduct on Dishonesty.
 Respondent did not deny the allegations against him and, instead,
admitted that he gave money to Mallari because "it is a common
practice in Fontana to give money to informants for vital information."
 Thus, petitioner FDC approved the recommendation of the Investigating
Panel and terminated respondent's employment after finding him guilty
of acts of dishonesty in the form of "bribery in any form or manner".
Respondent, however, refused to acknowledge its receipt and, instead,
filed a complaint.

5
Labor Arbiter Ruling:
Dismissed the complaint for lack of factual or legal basis, and ruled
that respondent cannot be regularized as he is an employee with a legal
and valid fixed-term employment and that his dismissal was for a just
cause.

NLRC Ruling:
The NLRC rendered a Resolution dated March 15, 2012, dismissing
the appeal and affirming the Decision of Labor Arbiter.

In so ruling, the NLRC noted that respondent had previously filed

another complaint before the same branch of the NLRC in San Fernando,
Pampanga, involving the same facts, issues, and prayer, entitled Sascha
Vukasinovic v. Jimei International Ltd., Suk Man Choi, as Group Financial
Comptroller, and Chris Cheng, as Deputy Group Financial Comptroller, and
docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB III-09-18113-11. This previous case has
been dismissed by Labor Arbiter Reynaldo Abdon (Abdon) on the ground of
forum shopping. The dismissal was eventually sustained by both the NLRC
and the CA. In its, March 16, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 126225, the
13th Division of the CA affirmed that there was, indeed, forum shopping.
The CA Decision has become final there being no appeal interposed by
respondent.

CA Ruling:
The CA agreed with the NLRC when it ruled that herein respondent's
employment had not ripened into regular employment and that he was
validly dismissed. Respondent, being a managerial employee, can be
terminated on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. However,
contrary to the Decision of the NLRC, the CA ordered the award of unpaid
salaries to respondent. The CA held that petitioner FDC failed to present
evidence to show payment of the salaries of respondent for the period
claimed.

ISSUE: W/N the CA gravely erred in not dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP
No. 125945 for deliberate forum shopping?

RULING: The petition is meritorious.

There is forum shopping when a party repetitively avails of several

judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential
facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either

6
pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. Forum
shopping is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned
because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. It degrades
the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court
dockets. Indeed, the existence of forum shopping has been duly proved in
this case. As a result, petitioners hinge this present appeal on the error
committed by the CA in not dismissing outright the appeal filed by
respondent

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED.

The Decision dated April 28, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 125945 of the Court of
Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for certiorari filed
by respondent Sascha Vukasinovic with the CA is ordered DISMISSED on
the ground of deliberate forum shopping.

4. AGUIRRE PAWNSHOP CO., INC., MICHELINA A. OLONDRIZ AND

MARISSA A. PEÑA, petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS M. AQUINO,
respondent. [G.R. No. 199985. November 21, 2018.]
FACTS:
 Petitioner was hired by the company sometime in 1953 as a clerk and
over time, she rose from the ranks until she reached the position of Vice
President. She was directly responsible for the supervision of several of
the company's branches.
 Sometime in February 2006, petitioner conducted an audit on the
Legarda Branch and after doing so, she reported that everything was
accounted for in the said branch.
 Subsequently however, private respondent Olondriz ordered another
audit which was done by Francisco and Balaos and it was discovered
that several items were missing from the Legarda Branch's vault and
that Tiozon, who had already gone into hiding, was most likely the one
who took the said items. Upon further investigation, it was discovered
that petitioner redeemed a pawned said item owned by a client
 On April 7, 2006, the counsel of private respondents wrote a letter to
petitioner's counsel informing the latter that although his client failed to
appear on the scheduled hearing, she was given another opportunity to
attend the fact-finding hearing on April 10, 2006.
 However, instead of showing up on said hearing, petitioner through
counsel, wrote a letter addressed to private respondents' counsel
informing the latter that petitioner has decided to retire from the
company and should therefore be paid her retirement benefits
amounting to P2,369,807.55. Subsequently however, on April 22, 2006,
private respondents notified petitioner that she was being terminated
from service by reason of her gross negligence and dishonesty.

7
 Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of
her retirement benefits. In her Position Paper, petitioner alleged, among
others, that she was not guilty of gross negligence in the performance of
her functions.
 For their part, private respondent averred, among others, in their
Position Paper that petitioner was guilty of deception, fraud and/or
misrepresentation for having redeemed the items of Ms. Ely Lorenzo
(Lorenzo) despite the clear fact that it is against Company policy and
that petitioner also falsified the company records by making it appear
that it was Lorenzo who redeemed the item.

Labor Arbiter Ruling:

Ordering respondents to pay complainant a total of Php2, 096,
014.57 and dismissed the claim for illegal dismissal for lack of merit.

NLRC Ruling:
NLRC partly granted the respondent’s motion for reconsideration by
setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision but ordered respondents to
pay complainant a total of Php1, 090, 388.46 as retirement benefits, and all
other dispositions remain.

The NLRC maintained that although the respondent had been legally
dismissed, she had acquired a vested right in her retirement benefits upon
reaching the age of 65 years; and that her subsequent infraction during the
"extension" of her employment, albeit a valid ground for her dismissal, did
not forfeit her vested right to the retirement benefits

CA Ruling:
Granted respondents petition for certiorari, hence, the assailed
decision and resolution is reversed and set aside. The case is hereby
REMANDED to the NLRC for the computation of the said monetary awards.

ISSUE: W/N the CA ignored the fact that Aquino was an officer of Aguirre
Pawnshop and as such, mere loss of confidence is a sufficient ground for
her dismissal?

RULING: We DENY the petition for review on certiorari for its lack of merit.

The petitioners contend that they had just causes to dismiss the
respondent based on grounds of dishonesty and cheating, gross negligence
in the performance of duty and loss of confidence. The burden of proof in

8
every case of illegal dismissal rests on the employer to prove the ground for
the dismissal.

The CA concluded that gross negligence in the performance of her

duties could not be considered as a just cause for the dismissal of the
respondent.

The petitioners further claim that the respondent breached their

trust and confidence when she admitted in her March 25, 2006 letter that
Arlene Tiozon had stolen an item from the vault and pawned it, but she
(respondent) had later redeemed with her personal funds; and that she did
not report the theft to the management or to law enforcement authorities.

Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must

be clearly shown to rest on a willful breach of trust. A breach is willful if it is
done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently. The act must rest on substantial grounds, not on the
employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicions; otherwise, the
employee would remain eternally at the mercy of the employer. Moreover,
the act complained of, to suffice as a just cause for dismissal, must be
established to be work-related as to manifest that the employee concerned
is unfit to continue working for the employer. Such ground for dismissal has
never been intended to afford an occasion for abuse because of its
subjective nature.

Accordingly, the respondent's letter alone was insufficient to

substantiate the petitioners' claim of her having willfully breached the trust
and confidence reposed in her by the petitioners. Considering that the
petitioners did not clearly and convincingly establish the factual bases for
the supposed loss of trust and confidence, we cannot but rule that her
dismissal, being without just cause, was illegal. The consequences of the
illegal dismissal should follow.

We affirm the CA thereon. We likewise affirm the granting of the

retirement benefits because the CA correctly applied the law and
jurisprudence. WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on
certiorari; and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on May 31, 2011 without
pronouncement on costs of suit.

9
 5. ARLENE A. CUARTOCRUZ, petitioner, vs. ACTIVE WORKS, INC., and
MA. ISABEL E. HERMOSA, Branch Manager, respondents. [G.R. No.
209072. July 24, 2019.]
FACTS:
 Respondent Active Works, Inc. (AWI), a Philippine corporation engaged
in the recruitment of domestic helpers in Hong Kong, is petitioner's
agency, and respondent Ma. Isabel Hermosa is its Branch Manager.
 Petitioner Cuartocruz and Ho, a Hong Kong national, entered into a
contract of employment whereby petitioner shall work as the latter's
domestic helper for a period of two years. Petitioner was tasked to do
household chores and baby-sitting, among others, for a monthly salary
of HK$3,400.00 and other emoluments and benefits provided under the
contract.
 On August 11, 2007, petitioner received a warning letter from her
employer, stating that she is required to improve her attentiveness in
performing her work within one month.
 However, in a letter dated August 16, 2007, Cheng Chi Ho informed the
Immigration Department that he is terminating the contract with
petitioner effective immediately for the following reasons: "disobey
order (sic), unmatch the contract which she submit before (sic), [and]
refuse to care my baby (sic)."
 Petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal
dismissal, payment of unpaid salaries and salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of the contract of employment, reimbursement of
placement fee and other fees incident to petitioner's deployment to
Hong Kong, and moral and exemplary damages.
 Petitioner denied committing the acts imputed to her by Cheng Chi Ho,
and claimed that those were baseless and fabricated. Further, at no time
was her attention called with respect to those acts that she allegedly
committed.

Executive Labor Arbiter Ruling:

On June 16, 2008, the Executive LA (ELA) rendered a Decision, among
others, finding the termination of petitioner's employment contract
without notice as valid and legal. The ELA held that petitioner was already
warned by her employer to improve her work, yet she did not show
improvement in her work performance and attitude. She also
misrepresented herself to be single, but later on admitted that she was
separated with a child. This information does not match with the
information stated in her employment contract and constitutes dishonesty
on her part. Moreover, the termination of her employment contract was in
accordance with Hong Kong's Employment Ordinance.

10
NLRC Ruling:
On May 29, 2009, the NLRC issued a Resolution nullifying and setting
aside the ELA Decision. It held that, among others, that there is insufficient
proof of petitioner's alleged dishonesty in concealing her civil status,
jurisprudence has settled that this is a form of dishonesty so trivial that it
will not warrant the penalty of dismissal. Consequently, the NLRC found
petitioner to have been illegally dismissed and awarded her full
reimbursement of her placement fee of P45,000.00 with 12% interest per
annum pursuant to RA 8042, reimbursement of P2,500.00 medical
examination fee, and unpaid salaries equivalent to three months for every
year of the unexpired portion of the contract, or a total period of six
months.

CA Ruling:
On April 26, 2012, the CA rendered its Decision affirming with
modification the NLRC Resolution.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner was illegally dismissed?

RULING: In this case, respondents failed to prove by substantial evidence

that there was just or authorized cause for the termination of petitioner's
employment. About a week into her job, or on August 11, 2007, petitioner
received a warning letter from her employer requiring her "to improve
[her] attentiveness on [her] performance within one month x x x" failing
which the letter shall serve "as a written notice x x x that the x x x contract
will be terminated with immediate effect on 11 September, 2007."

Nonetheless, after five days, or on August 16, 2007, petitioner's

contract was terminated for the following reasons: "(1) disobey order (sic);
(2) unmatch the contract which she submit before (sic); and (3) refuse to
care my baby (sic)." The grounds cited for the termination of petitioner's
employment contract are considered just causes under Article 282 of the
Labor Code, but only if respondents were able to prove them. The burden of
proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer, who
must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal
was for a justifiable cause. Failure to show that there was valid or just cause
for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.

Here, no evidence was presented to substantiate the employer's

accusations. There was no showing of particular instances when petitioner
supposedly disobeyed her employer and refused to take care of his baby.
With respect to petitioner's alleged misrepresentation that she was single

11
when in fact she was a single parent, there is also no showing how this
affected her work as a domestic helper. In fact, being a mother herself puts
petitioner in a better position to care for her employer's child. Where there
is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of
employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.

12
SYNTHESIS: DISHONESTY AS A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL IN LABOR CASES.

Jurisprudence is explicit on the point that when an employee has

been guilty of breach of trust or his employer has ample reason to distrust
him, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to dismiss
him. Specifically, Article 282 of the Labor Code expressly provides for an
employee’s grounds for dismissal.

Article 282 of the Labor Code, include:

(a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with
her work;
(b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of her duties;
(c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in her
by her employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of her employer or any immediate member of her family or
her duly authorized representative; and
(e) other causes analogous to the foregoing.

However, theses grounds for the termination of employee are only

considered just causes if the employer were able to prove them. In the
cases above, loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal,
must be clearly shown to rest on a willful breach of trust.

A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely,

without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. The act must rest on substantial
grounds, not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicions;
otherwise, the employee would remain eternally at the mercy of the
employer.

Moreover, the act complained of, to suffice as a just cause for

dismissal, must be established to be work-related as to manifest that the
employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer. Such
ground for dismissal has never been intended to afford an occasion for
abuse because of its subjective nature.

The burden of proof in every case of illegal dismissal rests on the

employer to prove the ground for the dismissal, who must affirmatively
show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable

13
cause. Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination
would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.

Furthermore, it is true that every person is entitled to be presumed

innocent of wrongdoing. The objective of the presumption has been to lay
the burden of proof on the shoulders of the alleger of wrongdoing. But the
presumption, which is disputable, by no means excuses the employee
charged with wrongdoing from answering and defending herself once the
presumption has been overcome by a showing to the contrary.

The failure of the employee to rebut or disprove the proof of

wrongdoing then establishes the charge against her. This is especially true
in a case for dismissal grounded on loss of confidence or breach of trust, in
which the employer may proceed to dismiss the erring employee once the
employer becomes morally convinced that she was guilty of a breach of
trust and confidence.

In one of the cases above, the Court ruled that gross negligence in
the performance of the employee’s duties could not be considered as a just
cause for the dismissal of the respondent. In another case, the concealment
of an employee of her civil status does not constitute dishonesty that
affects the employee’s work. Jurisprudence has settled that this is a form of
dishonesty so trivial that it will not warrant the penalty of dismissal.

As a remedy for illegally dismissed employees, Article 279 of the

Labor Code, provides that an illegally dismissed employee "shall be entitled
to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to
his full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement."

14