Title
Supreme Court
Pfizer, Inc. vs. Velasco
Case
G.R. No. 177467
Decision Date
Mar 9, 2011
Employee on medical leave accused of misconduct, dismissed; courts ruled dismissal valid but awarded wages during reinstatement order period due to employer's non-compliance.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 177467)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Employment and Medical Background
    • Private respondent Geraldine L. Velasco was employed by petitioner PFIZER, INC. as a Professional Health Care Representative since August 1, 1992.
    • In April 2003, Velasco underwent a medical work-up for her high-risk pregnancy and was subsequently advised to observe bed rest, leading her to extend her leave of absence.
    • During her extended leave, Velasco filed various types of leaves:
      • Sick leave from March 26 to June 18, 2003.
      • Vacation leave from June 19 to June 20, 2003.
      • Leave without pay from June 23 to July 14, 2003.
  • PFIZER’s Disciplinary Actions
    • On June 26, 2003, while Velasco was still on leave, PFIZER—through its Area Sales Manager, petitioner Ferdinand Cortez—served her a "Show-cause Notice" dated June 25, 2003.
      • The notice indicated an investigation into possible violations of company work rules, particularly unauthorized deals, discounts, withdrawal of stocks, and submission of company accountabilities.
      • It imposed a preventive suspension for 30 days (until August 6, 2003) and directed her to surrender several items such as a company car, samples, various company forms, a cash card, a Caltex card, and travel fund documents.
    • On the following day, petitioner Cortez, accompanied by another PFIZER representative, retrieved these accountabilities from Velasco’s residence.
    • Velasco promptly responded on June 28, 2003, with a letter denying the charges and explaining that a transaction involving Mercury Drug was for undisclosed patients of a certain doctor, attaching supporting documents.
  • Escalation of Disciplinary Proceedings
    • On July 12, 2003, Velasco received a "Second Show-cause Notice" which included:
      • An affidavit by a person named Carlito Jomen alleging Velasco’s involvement in transacting with a printing shop for PFIZER discount coupons.
      • Text messages from Velasco’s company-issued cellphone as evidence.
      • A 48-hour deadline for a written explanation.
    • Velasco requested an extension to answer the notice on July 16, 2003, the same day on which she filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the Regional Arbitration Branch.
    • On July 17, 2003, PFIZER issued a disciplinary hearing invitation set for July 22, 2003.
      • Velasco protested this invitation, stating that any issues could be resolved during the hearing or the preliminary conferences scheduled in August 2003, and she withheld her answer to the second notice.
    • A "Third Show-cause Notice" along with additional affidavits from two branch managers of Mercury Drug was issued on July 25, 2003.
    • The cumulative disciplinary actions culminated in PFIZER terminating Velasco on July 29, 2003 via a "Management Decision".
  • Procedural History in Labor and Appellate Bodies
    • December 5, 2003 – The Labor Arbiter ruled that Velasco’s dismissal was illegal:
      • Ordered her reinstatement without loss of seniority.
      • Awarded full backwages calculated from the Labor Arbiter’s decision including allowances, bonuses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees (total award approximately P758,080.00).
    • On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC):
      • NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but deleted moral and exemplary damages, and modified attorney’s fees to be based on the 13th month pay.
    • PFIZER’s subsequent motions for reconsideration before the NLRC were denied.
    • PFIZER then filed a special civil action with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul and set aside the NLRC issuances:
      • November 23, 2005 – The Court of Appeals reversed the reinstatement decision; it ruled that Velasco’s dismissal was valid and dismissed her complaint for illegal dismissal.
    • October 23, 2006 – In a separate resolution, the Court of Appeals modified its ruling by directing PFIZER to pay Velasco wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision (December 5, 2003) until the November 23, 2005 decision.
    • April 10, 2007 – The Court of Appeals denied PFIZER’s motion for partial reconsideration on the wage payment issue.
    • PFIZER filed a petition for review under Rule 45, assailing the Court of Appeals’ resolutions regarding wage payments.
    • December 5, 2007 – The Supreme Court, in a minute resolution by its Second Division, denied Velasco’s petition for review on certiorari and dismissed arguments for reversible error, upholding the wage-related rulings.
  • PFIZER’s Contentions in the Supreme Court
    • PFIZER argued that the reinstatement order should have been immediately executory, contending that it had directed Velasco to report for work on July 1, 2005 via its June 27, 2005 letter.
    • PFIZER maintained that:
      • Velasco’s refusal to return (as she opted for separation pay) negated the duty to pay wages.
      • There was no unjustified refusal on PFIZER’s part.
      • Jurisprudence in Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. should not control the case, advocating instead for the doctrine in Genuino which he argued was more equitable.
    • PFIZER further contended that if Velasco was deemed reinstated in the payroll, she should refund the wages received pending appeal if the final decision upheld her dismissal.
  • Context on Reinstatement and Payroll Reinstatement
    • The legal framework under Article 223 of the Labor Code was emphasized:
      • An employee entitled to reinstatement can be reinstated to work under the same terms or merely placed on the payroll.
      • The order of reinstatement is immediately self-executory, even pending appeal.
    • Case precedents such as Pioneer Texturizing Corporation, Roquero, and Genuino were cited to underline the principle that employers must comply promptly with reinstatement orders and pay backwages for the period pending appeal.
    • The Supreme Court clarified that PFIZER’s failure to provide actual reinstatement on the same terms (including location and job responsibilities) rendered the payment of wages for the pendency period justifiable.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious but reversible error when it:
    • Reversed the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement, thereby concluding the dismissal of Velasco was valid.
    • Ordered PFIZER to pay Velasco her wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision (December 5, 2003) until the Court of Appeals rendered its decision (November 23, 2005), even though no immediate reinstatement in actual work had been effected.
  • Whether PFIZER’s alleged compliance through its June 27, 2005 letter to report for work, despite being tardy and ambiguous regarding the terms of reinstatement, qualifies as a full and bona fide reinstatement under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
  • Whether the application of jurisprudence in Roquero (supporting immediate payroll reinstatement and wage payment pending appeal) should govern over the alternative doctrine proposed in Genuino, especially considering the potential for employer abuse and unjust enrichment.
  • Whether a mechanical application of the “refund doctrine” (as advanced by Genuino) would cause injustice to the dismissed employee who, despite the reversal of the reinstatement order, was harmed by the employer’s unreasonable delay in executing the reinstatement.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

    ...continue reading
    Unlock Full Case Digest

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

    About Privacy Terms