Facts:
On
December 14, 1995,
Zenaida Uy, a bank teller assigned to
BPI’s Escolta Branch, was terminated by
Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for
gross disrespect/discourtesy towards an officer,
insubordination, and
absence without leave. Uy, together with
BPI Employees Union-Metro Manila (the Union), filed a case for
illegal dismissal. On
December 31, 1997, the
Voluntary Arbitrator found the dismissal
illegal and ordered Uy’s
reinstatement, the payment of
full back wages from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement, and payment of
other benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), plus
attorney’s fees. On
October 28, 1998, the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification: instead of reinstatement, it ordered
separation pay, and instead of full back wages, it limited back wages to
three years. Both parties sought review before the Supreme Court.
BPI’s petition was dismissed for failure to comply with
the requirements for a valid certification of non-forum shopping, but Uy’s and the Union’s petition proceeded to decision. On
March 31, 2005, the Supreme Court modified the CA’s ruling by directing BPI to pay
back wages from the time of illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement and ordering
reinstatement to Uy’s former position or a substantially equivalent one, without loss of seniority rights and other benefits attendant to the position. After the March 31, 2005 decision became final and executory, Uy and the Union filed a
Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution. In computing back wages, Uy used the
current wage level and included wage and benefit increases under the CBA granted during the entire period, such as
COLA,
Financial Assistance,
Quarterly Bonus,
CBA Signing Bonus,
Uniform Allowance,
Medicine Allowance,
Dental Care,
Medical and Doctor’s Allowance,
Teller’s Functional Allowance, vacation and sick leave credits,
Holiday Pay,
Anniversary Bonus,
Burial Assistance, and an
Omega watch. BPI disputed the computation, arguing that “back wages” should exclude items not already being received at the time of dismissal and should be based on the employee’s wage rate at the time of termination. In an Order dated
December 6, 2005, the Voluntary Arbitrator largely accepted Uy’s approach and computed back wages at
P3,897,197.89, and a writ of execution and notice of garnishment followed. BPI then filed a
certiorari petition before the CA under
Rule 65, arguing that the Voluntary Arbitrator’s computation amended and varied the Supreme Court’s March 31, 2005 final decision. The CA issued a TRO restraining implementation and/or enforcement of the execution order and treated the reinstatement aspect as restrained. On
July 4, 2007, the CA issued the
Amended Decision. It held that certiorari was proper, clarified that the March 31, 2005 decision did not reinstate the Voluntary Arbitrator’s earlier award of CBA benefits as components of back wages, and ordered recomputation of back wages by using Uy’s
basic monthly salary at the time of dismissal plus only those regular allowances proven at dismissal, while excluding salary increases and CBA benefits granted after dismissal that were not sufficiently proven. The CA likewise deleted some items for lack of proof, but allowed
teller’s functional allowance,
holiday pay, and the
monetary equivalent of vacation and sick leave benefits. Uy later argued, among others, for additional
interest, while BPI challenged the computations, mode of appeal, service on the CA, and the grant of attorney’s fees. In the Supreme Court, the petitions were consolidated, and the Court resolved them in a single decision.
Issues:
Whether the CA correctly modified the recomputation of Uy’s back wages and monetary awards by using Uy’s
salary rate and regular allowances at the time of dismissal, excluding wage increases and CBA benefits not proven to have been enjoyed at dismissal, while affirming attorney’s fees and adjusting the allowance for vacation and sick leave conversion.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: