Facts:

On March 4, 1952, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order compelling Farmacia Oro to reinstate five employees: Leonila Calcas, Marina C. Villaroman, Salud Aranza, Vicente Sayago, and Quirico Saratan, mandating their reinstatement with pay from the date of their dismissal. After Farmacia Oro filed two motions for reconsideration, both were denied, and the initial decision became final. Subsequently, on May 21, 1952, the Association of Drugstore Employees, representing the aforementioned workers, filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. They followed up with an additional motion on June 13, 1952, but these motions were not acted upon. A supplemental motion for execution was filed on July 14, 1952, which resulted in a writ being issued on July 31, 1952. On August 14, 1952, a sheriff brought the five employees to Farmacia Oro, but they were assigned to lower positions than before their dismissal. A few weeks later, on August 31, 1952, Farmacia Oro dismissed

...

Facts:

Order for Reinstatement and Initial Motions

• On March 4, 1952, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order directing Farmacia Oro to reinstate five employees—Leonila Calcas, Marina C. Villaroman, Salud Aranza, Vicente Sayago, and Quirico Saratan—to their former positions with pay from the time of their dismissal.
• Farmacia Oro filed two motions for reconsideration which were subsequently denied, and the reinstatement order became final.

Filing and Execution of the Writ

• The Association of Drugstore Employees, representing the five employees, filed a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution on May 21, 1952, followed by another similar motion on June 13, 1952; however, these motions were not acted upon at that time.
• A supplemental motion for execution was filed on July 14, 1952, after which the corresponding writ was issued on July 31, 1952.

Reinstatement Under Execution and Subsequent Dismissal

• On August 14, 1952, a deputy sheriff executed the writ by bringing the five employees to the Farmacia Oro store at Rizal Avenue, Manila; notably, they were admitted but placed in positions lower than their original ones.
• On August 31, 1952, Farmacia Oro dismissed the five employees on the pretext that the company had to close two of its branch stores, although the motion seeking permission to close the branches remained pending.

Garnishment of Back Wages and Disbursement Issues

• Pursuant to the writ of execution, the sheriff garnished from Farmacia Oro’s account in the Philippine Trust Co. the sum of P5,295.24, representing the back wages of the employees from October 31, 1951 (the date of their dismissal) until July 31, 1952 (the issuance of the writ).
• On September 22, 1952, the Court of Industrial Relations authorized its clerk to disburse the garnished amount; however, before payment could be effected, Farmacia Oro filed a motion on September 24, 1952 to suspend payment on two bases:
• The claim that the five employees had gained employment elsewhere during the pendency of the case, suggesting that wages received from that employment should be deducted.
• The contention that since the employees were asked on June 12, 1952, through their attorneys, to report for duty and failed to do so, Farmacia Oro was not bound to pay back wages from the date of that notice.

The Order of October 21, 1952 and Subsequent Reconsideration

• On October 21, 1952, Presiding Judge Arsenio C. Roldan of the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order holding that the five employees were entitled to back wages only from October 23, 1951 (the actual date of their dismissal) until June 12, 1952 (the date on which they were notified to report for duty but failed to do so).
• The Association of Drugstore Employees filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by resolution on January 6, 1953. The vote on the resolution showed:
• Presiding Judge Roldan and Associate Judges Modesto Castillo and Juan L. Lanting voting in favor of the resolution.
• Associate Judge Jose S. Bautista, with Associate Judge V. Jimenez Yanson concurring in a dissenting vote.
• The association then filed the present petition for review on certiorari, challenging the modified back wage period and the corresponding orders.

Contested Notice and Employer’s Inconsistent Conduct

• It was alleged that on June 12, 1952, the employees were notified to report for duty—a notice whose alleged legal sufficiency was questioned due to:
• The fact that, at the time of the notice, the March 4, 1952 decision had not yet become final and executory owing to pending litigation concerning Farmacia Oro’s petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court (dismissed finally on July 7, 1952).
• The practical difficulties for the employees, who resided in different provinces, to comply immediately with the notice.
• Farmacia Oro’s act of placing the employees in lower positions when they were brought to the premises further underscored the inconsistency of their claim that they intended to reinstate the employees as early as June 12, 1952.

Issue:

• Whether the notice given on June 12, 1952, to report for duty was sufficient and determinative in depriving the employees of reinstatement benefits.
• Whether the garnishment of back wages covering the period from October 31, 1951, until July 31, 1952, should be adjusted to reflect a shorter period as contended by Farmacia Oro.
• Whether placing the employees in lower positions during execution of the reinstatement order is consistent with the court’s mandate to restore them to their original position.
• Whether the actions and representations made by Farmacia Oro (including the motion to suspend back wage payment and the subsequent dismissal on August 31, 1952) contravene the final order of reinstatement issued on March 4, 1952.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)