G.R. No. 160090 - Del Pilar vs. Batangas II Electric Cooperative, Inc.

The case involves two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari brought before the Supreme Court.
Complainants are former employees of Batangas II Electric Cooperative Inc. (BATELEC II) who held various positions.
Respondent is BATELEC II, the employer.

The complainants participated in rallies denouncing alleged corrupt and irregular activities of certain BATELEC II officials.
They were dismissed on grounds of participating in an illegal strike.
The complainants, together with other employees, filed a case for illegal dismissal.
On October 15, 1993, a Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring their dismissal illegal and ordered:

Reinstatement to their former positions (either physically or in the payroll) without loss of seniority and privileges.
Payment of full back wages (including allowances, computed for a period not to exceed three years), moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

A writ of execution was issued, leading to the actual reinstatement in the payroll and payment of back wages and other benefits from December 1, 1992, to March 31, 1995.

On March 31, 1995, during the execution of the original award, BATELEC II filed a Manifestation with Motion.

The cooperative contended that due to a major reorganization and streamlining—which involved the abolition of certain positions—the physical reinstatement of the complainants was no longer possible.
BATELEC II offered to pay one month’s salary for every year of service instead.

On September 29, 1995, the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

The order granted separation pay and denied other motions such as contempt citations and claims for unpaid salaries or benefits beyond the effective termination period.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) partially granted a Motion for Reconsideration in 1996, further ordering the payment of a modest indemnity.
During the pendency of the CA case, some complainants settled amicably, leading to their eventual dismissal from the proceedings.
On May 26, 2000, the CA ordered BATELEC II to pay separation pay—computed as one month’s salary for every year of service—and full back wages from April 1, 1995, up to the finality of the decision.
In its order, the CA principally relied on Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission to mandate the payment of a monetary penalty for failing to observe the correct termination procedure.

They asserted that the impossibility of reinstatement took effect on March 31, 1995, and contended that the computation should not extend beyond that date.
There was also a dispute whether back wages should include allowances and additional benefits.

An Order dated December 10, 2001, approved a computation for separation pay and back wages.
BATELEC II appealed this computation to the NLRC, which modified the calculation to include only the basic pay plus regular allowances (e.g., the 13th month pay) when computing full back wages.
Multiple motions for reconsideration were filed concerning the computation, including issues on attorney’s fees.
In a CA decision dated June 20, 2003, the appellate court affirmed with modifications that the base figure for full back wages should include only the employee’s basic salary, excluding extra benefits.

Distinct petitions were filed by complainants (G.R. No. 160090) and BATELEC II (G.R. No. 160121).
Complainants argue that the CA’s recomputation altered the original terms of the final judgment, while BATELEC II maintained that it had complied with the statutory notice requirements.

The requirement to post an appeal bond was challenged.
The proper remedy for the failure to serve a written notice of retrenchment was questioned.
The petitioners invoked previous cases like Serrano, Agabon, and Jaka to bolster their positions regarding back wages and indemnity.

Whether the appellate courts erred in recomputing the monetary awards such that full back wages were limited to the basic salary (excluding allowances and other benefits), in apparent conflict with the rule that back wages are “inclusive” in cases of illegal dismissal.
Whether the recomputation of awards constitutes an impermissible alteration or amendment of a final and executory judgment.
Whether the absence of a written notice—required by Article 283 of the Labor Code—for retrenchment renders the retrenchment invalid (illegal dismissal) or merely necessitates the payment of a nominal indemnity.
Whether the posting of an appeal bond is strictly required in this case, considering the stage of execution and the potential for unjust enrichment on the part of the complainants.
Whether the remedy appropriate for the procedural defect (lack of proper notice) in authorized retrenchment should be the awarding of indemnity only (in this case, P50,000.00 per employee) rather than full back wages.