G.R. No. 10073 - Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co.

On May 13, 1988, petitioner Joy L. Bombase filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondent Bliss Development Corporation.
At the time of filing, petitioner was the officer-in-charge of the company’s EDP Systems Department.
On February 26, 1990, Arbiter Lourdes Sales rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, declaring her dismissal illegal.
The arbiter ordered the private respondent to reinstate petitioner without loss of seniority rights and to pay her full back wages for the period during which her compensation was withheld (from May 7, 1987 to May 7, 1990), computed solely on her basic salary.
The decision also directed the respondent to pay attorney’s fees.
The respondent appealed the decision to the second division of the NLRC, but its appeal was dismissed for failure to post an appeal bond, thus rendering the decision final.

On February 6, 1991, petitioner was paid P190,120.00 as back wages covering a three-year period, computed based on her basic salary and excluding other benefits and allowances.
Petitioner's reinstatement encountered difficulties when the respondent argued that former President Corazon C. Aquino had ordered, on May 9, 1988, the dissolution and absorption of Bliss Development Corporation by the Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation, making reinstatement legally impossible.
Petitioner's subsequent move to cite the respondent’s General Manager, Wilfredo Hernandez, for contempt resulted in a finding of indirect contempt and a fine of P100.00 against him, though reinstatement still did not occur.

On January 13, 1992, petitioner filed a Joint Motion for the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest and for a Second Writ of Execution, seeking:

Immediate, actual, and payroll reinstatement as of the date of the decision.
Payment of salaries due from the time of automatic payroll reinstatement (May 8, 1990) until the dissolution of the respondent (May 22, 1992).

Arbiter Melquiades Sol del Rosario, on March 19, 1992, denied the motion, holding that:

Her back wages should be recomputed to include not only her basic wage but also all benefits and allowances.
Given that reinstatement had become unfeasible, she should instead be granted separation pay.
Additional back wages were due for the period from May 8, 1990 to May 22, 1992.

Private respondent maintained that reinstatement was no longer feasible.
On July 8, 1992, the arbiter denied the motions on the ground that, under section 17, Rule 5 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, such motions for reconsideration were prohibited.

Petitioner’s appeal to the NLRC was raised based on alleged grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in:

Awarding back wages computed solely on her basic salary, excluding other due allowances and benefits.
Failing to hold the respondent liable for payment of salaries during the period of automatic payroll reinstatement.
Limiting the award of separation pay to only three years rather than up to the date when reinstatement became impossible.
Not ordering the release of her employment records.

Sustaining the award of back wages as proper since petitioner failed to timely raise the issue on appeal.
Ordering the respondent or its successor-in-interest to pay petitioner separation pay amounting to P42,000.00 in lieu of reinstatement.

The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where the contention of grave abuse of discretion by the public respondent (NLRC) was examined.

Awarding back wages to petitioner computed solely on the basis of her basic salary while excluding other benefits and allowances.
Denying petitioner’s contention that additional salary should be paid for the period of automatic payroll reinstatement (from May 8, 1990 until the respondent’s dissolution or May 22, 1992).
Limiting the award of separation pay strictly to a three-year period instead of extending it to the full period until reinstatement became legally impossible.
Not ordering the release of petitioner’s complete employment records.

Whether considering procedural rules (e.g., the barred motion for reconsideration under section 17, Rule 5 of the NLRC’s rules and the jurisdictional appeal period under Article 223 of the Labor Code), petitioner’s additional claims and arguments could still be entertained.