G.R. No. 195227 - Bergonio, Jr. vs. South East Asian Airlines

On April 30, 2004, the petitioners filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for illegal dismissal and illegal suspension, seeking reinstatement and backwages against South East Asian Airlines (SEAIR) and its president, Irene Dornier.
On May 31, 2005, the LA ruled that the petitioners were illegally dismissed and ordered their immediate reinstatement along with full backwages.
The respondents received a copy of the LA’s decision on July 8, 2005.

Filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution on August 20, 2005.
Obtained a writ of execution on October 7, 2005 despite opposition from the respondents.

The respondents opposed the writ execution on the basis that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated due to alleged threatening text messages from the petitioners.
The writ of execution was returned unsatisfied; petitioners then filed motions for re-computation and reissuance of the writ (an alias writ on February 16, 2006 and another on April 24, 2007).

On February 21, 2006, the respondents issued a Memorandum directing the petitioners to report for work on February 24, 2006.
The petitioners failed to report on the appointed date.
In subsequent proceedings, the petitioners filed a motion for immediate release of the garnished amount to cover their accrued wages.
On January 31, 2008, the petitioners again sought urgent relief with an ex-parte motion before the LA, which in its March 13, 2008 order, directed the depositary bank to release the garnished P1,900,000.00.
The LA’s order acknowledged that despite the reversal of its illegal dismissal findings in a December 18, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), the petitioners had accrued wages computed at P3,078,366.33 due to the respondents’ failure to reinstate them.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in its July 16, 2008 resolution affirmed the LA’s March 13, 2008 order and the release of the garnished amount.
The respondents subsequently filed motions for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied.
The respondents assailed the NLRC’s decision by filing a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The CA reversed the NLRC decision, holding that the computation of petitioners’ accrued wages should have ceased on February 24, 2006—the date the petitioners were directed to report for work, which they failed to do.
The CA reasoned that the petitioners’ failure to report for work, despite the issuance of the February 21, 2006 Memorandum, effectively attributed the delay in executing the reinstatement order to the petitioners rather than the respondents.

They contended that under Article 223, paragraph 3 of the Labor Code, the reinstatement order is immediately executory and that accrued wages should be computed until the decision reversal by the CA.
They argued that the delayed notification and the fact that the February 21, 2006 Memorandum was issued late (and only to one petitioner) evidenced that the respondents did not genuinely intend to comply with the reinstatement order.

They maintained that the petitioners were validly dismissed and that the LA’s order for reinstatement had been complied with by directing the petitioners to report for work.
They argued that the petitioners’ non-reporting and insistence on payroll reinstatement indicated their own fault, not the respondents’, thereby justifying the computation of accrued wages only until February 24, 2006.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover accrued wages up to the reversal of the LA’s decision by the CA or only until February 24, 2006 when they were directed to report for work.
Whether the delay in executing the reinstatement order was attributable to the respondents’ unjustified acts or the petitioners’ failure to comply with the return-to-work directive.
Whether the computation of accrued wages under Article 223, paragraph 3 of the Labor Code extends until the appellate reversal, regardless of subsequent non-compliance by the petitioners.