Case Digest (G.R. No. 226002)
Facts:
Lino A. Fernandez, Jr. v. Manila Electric Company (Meralco), G.R. No. 226002, June 25, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Lino A. Fernandez, Jr. was employed by respondent Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) from October 3, 1978 until his termination on September 14, 2000 for alleged participation in an illegal strike. Fernandez filed a case for illegal dismissal; the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled against him, but the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 95923 reversed and found him illegally dismissed in a January 30, 2007 decision, ordering reinstatement with full backwages or separation pay if reinstatement was infeasible. That CA decision became final and executory on May 26, 2008.During execution of that final judgment the parties disputed the inclusions and computation of monetary awards, renewal of certain motions, whether Fernandez should be reinstated, and whether he was entitled to additional backwages, CBA benefits, retirement benefits, longevity/14th/15th month pay, and attorney’s fees. Labor Arbiter (LA) Marie Josephine C. Suarez issued an Order dated June 27, 2014, which, among other dispositions, denied MERALCO's claim of full satisfaction, ordered Banco de Oro to release certain garnished funds to the NLRC cashier, declared Fernandez legally separated effective January 31, 2009, and ordered MERALCO to pay P1,950,525.53 representing additional backwages computed by the Computation Unit.
Fernandez received the LA Order on July 4, 2014 and filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum on Appeal on July 11, 2014; he later asserted that this filing should have been treated as a Verified Petition under Rule XII of the NLRC Rules. The LA merely noted the filings without action, treating appeals from execution orders as prohibited pleadings under Section 5(i) and (j), Rule V of the NLRC Rules. Fernandez subsequently filed a proper Verified Petition on August 26, 2014. The NLRC Fifth Division denied Fernandez’s Verified Petition on August 29, 2014 and denied his motion for reconsideration on October 20, 2014.
MERALCO separately filed a Verified Petition to assail the June 27, 2014 LA Order; it was initially dismissed for insufficiency in form and substance, later reinstated, but ultimately denied for lack of merit. Fernandez elevated the NLRC denial to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion by noting without action petitioner Fernandez’s Notice of Appeal filed from the Labor Arbiter’s June 27, 2014 Order during execution proceedings, instead of treating it as a Verified Petition under Rule XII?
- On the substantive execution issues, is Fernandez entitled to reinstatement (or separation pay), additional backwages and benefits (including retirement benefits), and attorney’s fees, and h...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)