G.R. No.

120567, March 20, 1998

Facts:
 Unless there is a restraining order, it is
ministerial upon the LA to implement the order of
reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer
to comply therewith.
The Court reaffirms the prevailing principle
that even if the order of reinstatement of the LA is
G.R. No. 164856, August 29, 2007 reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of
Juanito A. Garcia and Alberto J. Dumago the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the
vs. dismissed employee during the period of appeal
Philippine Airlines, Inc. until reversal by the higher court. It

Facts:
Petitioners Alberto J. Dumago and Juanito
A. Garcia were employed by respondent PAL as
Aircraft Furnishers Master "C" and Aircraft
Inspector, respectively.
A Notice of Administrative Charge was
served on them after they were allegedly caught in
the act of sniffing shabu within its premises and
were placed under preventive suspension.
However, they were dismissed for violation
of the PAL Code of Discipline. Garcia and Dumago
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL.
In the meantime, the SEC placed PAL under an
Interim Rehabilitation Receiver due to severe
financial losses.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in
petitioners’ favor finding PAL guilty of illegal
suspension and illegal dismissal and ordered
immediately for their reinstatement. Meanwhile, the
SEC replaced the Interim Rehabilitation Receiver
with a Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver.
PAL appealed and the Labor Tribunal ruled
in their favor. Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter
issued a writ of execution for the reinstatement and
issued a notice of garnishment.
The Labor Tribunal affirmed the writ and
notice but suspended and referred the action to the
Rehabilitation Receiver of PAL.

Issue:
Whether petitioners may collect their wages
during the period between the Labor Arbiter’s order
of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC
decision overturning that of the Labor Arbiter, now
that PAL has exited from rehabilitation proceedings.

Ruling:
A dismissed employee whose case was
favorably decided by the LA is entitled to receive
wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which
is immediately executory.
 then appealed to the NLRC. NLRC affirmed the
decision of the LA.

Issue:
Whether or not Del Rosario’s entitlement to
backwages be continued indefinitely until actual
G.R. No. 79106, April 10, 198 reinstatement.
Christian Literature Crusade Ruling:
vs. In case of defiance or non-compliance with
NLRC and Loida del Rosario the writ of execution, as in this case, where
Crusade paid del Rosario three (3) years
Facts: backwages but failed and refused and still fails and
Loida del Rosario was hired by Christian refuses to reinstate her despite several writs of
Literature Crusade as a bookkeeper. execution, the remedy is not for the grant in another
Later, an application for clearance to writ of execution of continuing backwages up to the
terminate the services of del Rosario on the ground time of actual reinstatement. The grant of additional
of incompetence was filed by Crusade with the backwages to serve as damages or as penalty to
Ministry of Labor and Employment. The said Crusade for persistently refusing to reinstate del
application was opposed by del Rosario. And del Rosario has no basis in the decision sought to be
Rosario was placed under preventive suspension. enforced and hence, it may not be resorted to in
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision order to compel reinstatement.
denying the application for clearance filed by Del Rosario should have filed a motion to
Christian literature Crusade and it (applicant) is cite Crusade in contempt for refusing to reinstate
ordered to reinstate Loida del Rosario to her former her despite several writs of execution issued by the
position/or substantially equivalent position, with Labor Arbiter.
backwages and without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges formerly appertaining to her.
A writ of execution was issued by the Labor
Arbiter upon motion of del Rosario, there being no
appeal. The award of back wages was satisfied.
However, del Rosario was not reinstated in view of
the "Manifestation and Motion to Hold in Abeyance
the Execution of the Decision Per Reinstatement of
the Complainant Loida del Rosario,' filed by
Crusade.
Del Rosario filed an "Ex-Parte Motion for the
Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution" praying
therein for reinstatement with payment of
allowances and 13th month pay from 1976, the
date of her dismissal, up to January, 1983. An Alias
Writ of Execution was issued by the Labor Arbiter
for del Rosario's reinstatement. A Manifestation and
Motion was again filed by del Rosario alleging that
the computation of her backwages should include
the allowances and 13th month pay. The same was
granted but instead of P380 as monthly salary as
the basis of the computation, the Labor Arbiter
based the award on P260 minimum wage plus
P110 monthly allowance.
Del Rosario filed motions for recomputation
of her backwages but the same was denied. She
 employer must prove the requirements for a valid
retrenchment by clear and convincing evidence;
otherwise, said ground for termination would be
susceptible to abuse by scheming employers who
might be merely feigning losses or reverses in their
business ventures in order to ease out employees.
In this case, the Court observes that Pepsi
G.R. No. 176908, November 11, 2015 had validly implemented its retrenchment program.
Purisimo M. Cabaobas, et. al. Pepsi complied with the requirements of substantial
vs. loss and due notice to both the DOLE and the
Pepsi Cola Products, Philippines workers to be retrenched.
And as held by the NLRC to which the Court
Facts: respected, PEPSI-COLA’s financial statements are
In 1999, Pepsi-Cola Tanauan Plant substantial evidence which carry great credibility
allegedly incurred business losses. To avert further and reliability viewed in light of the financial crisis
losses, PEPSI implemented a company-wide that hit the country which saw multinational
retrenchment program and retrenched forty-seven corporations closing shops and walking away, or
employees of its Tanauan Plant. Twenty-seven of adapting their own corporate rightsizing program.
the said employees, led by Anecito Molon, filed
complaints for illegal dismissal before the NLRC.
Cabaobas, et al, who are permanent and
regular employees of the Tanauan Plant received
their respective letters, informing them of the
ceasation of their employment pursuant to the
retrenchment program. They likewise filed their
complaints for illegal dismissal before the NLRC.
They alleged that PEPSi was not facing
serious financial losses because after their
termination, it regularized four employees and hired
replacements for the forty-seven previously
dismissed employees. They also alleged that the
retrenchment program was just designed to prevent
their union from becoming the certified bargaining
agent of PEPSI’s rank-and-file employees.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
finding the dismissal as illegal. The NLRC,
however, dismissed the complaints for illegal
dismissal and declared the retrenchment program
of PEPSI as a valid exercise of management
prerogatives.

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal pursuant to
PEPSI’s retrenchment program was valid.

Ruling:
The prerogative of an employer to retrench
its employees must be exercised only as a last
resort, considering that it will lead to the loss of the
employees' livelihood. It is justified only when all
other less drastic means have been tried and found
insufficient or inadequate. Corollary thereto, the
 Labor Arbiter likewise awarded the
respondents separation pay.
The NLRC however reversed the
appealed decision finding that the continued
suspension of Manila Mining’s operations was
due to circumstance beyond its control. It also
ruled that respondents were not entitled to
G.R. No. 182800, April 20, 2015 separation pay considering the eventual
Manila Mining Corporation closure of their employer’s business due to
vs. serious business losses or financial reverses.
Amor, et al
Issue:
Facts:
Respondents were regular employees of
Manila Mining Corporation, a domestic
corporation which operated a mining claim in
Placer, Surigao del Norte.
In compliance with existing
environmental laws, Manila Mining maintained
a tailing pond, a tailings containment facility
required for the storage of waste materials
generated by its mining operations. When the
tailings being pumped into the tailing pond
reached the maximum level, Manila Mining
temporarily shut down its mining operations
pending approval of its application to increase
said facility’s capacity by the DENR
Environment Management Bureau.
DENR issued a temporary authority for
Manila Mining to continue operating the tailing
pond for another six months, however the latter
failed to secure an extension permit when the
said temporary authority eventually lapsed.
Manila Mining served a notice informing
its employees and the DENR of the temporary
suspension of its operation for six months and
the temporary lay-off of two-thirds of its
employees. After the lapse of the said period,
Manila Mining notified DOLE that it was
extending the temporary shutdown of
operations for another six months.
Respondents filed a complaint for
constructive dismissal and monetary claims
before the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter held Manila Mining
liable for constructive dismissal in view of the
suspension of its operations beyond the
allowable period under the Labor Code. The
G.R. No. 89070, May 18, 1992
Benguet Electric Cooperative Inc.
vs.
NLRC, et,al

Facts:
Peter Cosalan was the General Manager of
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Beneco),
having been elected as such by the Board of
Directors of Beneco.
He received two Audit Memorandums
issued by COA which noted that the audit and
treatment of cash advances, per diems and
allowances received by officers and employees of
Beneco were not in compliance with the guidelines
of the National Electrification Administration (NEA).
The same directed the taking of immediate
remedial action in conformity with existing NEA
regulations. Cosalan initiated implementation of the
remedial measures recommended by the COA.
The members of the Board of Beneco
reacted by adopting a series of resolutions which
abolished the housing and other allowances of
Cosalan, reduced his salary and struck his name
out as a principal signatory to transactions of
Beneco. The Board adopted another series of
resolutions which resulted in the ouster of Cosalan
as General Manager as well as the withholding of
his salary and allowances.
Cosalan nevertheless continued to work as
General Manager of Beneco, in the belief that he
could be suspended or removed only by duly
authorized officials of NEA. Cosalan then requested
Beneco to release the compensation due him.
Beneco, acting through its Board members, denied
the written request of Cosalan.
Cosalan then filed a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC)
against members of the Beneco Board, challenging
the legality of the Board resolutions which ordered
his suspension and termination from the service
and demanding payment of his salaries and
allowances. Also, in the course of the proceedings,
Colosan filed a motion for reinstatement.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
confirming Cosalan's reinstatement, ordering
payment of his backwages and allowances, and
moral damages and attorney’s fees.