G.R. No. 152329 - Roquero vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

Alejandro Roquero, ground equipment mechanic employed by Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), is the petitioner.
Rene Pabayo, also a ground equipment mechanic of PAL, was similarly implicated, though he later settled and withdrew from the petition.
A third person, Jojie Alipato, though not an employee, is alleged to have instigated Roquero and Pabayo to use drugs.

During a raid conducted by PAL security officers in conjunction with NARCOM personnel, Roquero and Pabayo were found red-handed possessing and using Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).
Inside the company premises, the accused locked a door to carry out the drug intake once Alipato had prepared the substances.
Armed men intervened during the process, arresting Roquero and Pabayo and seizing both the drugs and the paraphernalia.

A physical examination was conducted which confirmed that both Roquero and Pabayo tested positive for drugs.
Both employees were taken to the PAL security office where they executed written confessions without the assistance of counsel.

On March 30, 1994, both employees received a notice of administrative charges for violating the PAL Code of Discipline.
As part of the administrative investigation, Roquero and Pabayo responded by contesting the charges and alleging that the act was not voluntary but the result of instigation by Alipato.
They argued that Alipato, who had no record of employment with PAL, was intentionally placed within the premises to entice employees into using drugs.
PAL eventually issued a memorandum dated July 14, 1994, dismissing the two employees based on the violations.

Roquero and Pabayo filed a case for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter’s decision upheld the dismissal on the basis that both parties were at fault: PAL for instigating the commission of the infraction, and the employees for succumbing to the temptation.
Despite the dismissal decision, the Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay and attorney’s fees to the complainants.

While the illegal dismissal case proceeded, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 114, Pasay City, acquitted both employees in a criminal case charging them with conspiracy for possession and use of shabu, highlighting the instigation defense.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) similarly ruled in favor of the complainants regarding the issue of instigation, ordering their reinstatement but without backwages.
PAL, however, refused to execute the reinstatement order on account of its pending appeal before the higher courts.
During the pendency of the appeal, PAL and Pabayo filed a Motion to Withdraw/Dismiss the case as to Pabayo, which was granted by the Court of Appeals.
Later, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision insofar as it reinstated the dismissal of Roquero but denied the award of separation pay and attorney’s fees on the ground that a validly dismissed employee is not entitled to such benefits.

Whether an instigated employee should be solely held responsible for the consequences of an act that was purportedly induced by a non-employee (i.e., through the instigation by a figure like Alipato).

Whether the immediate executory nature of a reinstatement order issued by a labor tribunal may be halted by a higher court’s petition for review without a concurrently issued restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Whether an employer who refuses to execute a writ of execution for reinstatement should be held liable to pay the employee’s salary from the issuance of the reinstatement order until the final decision of the appellate court.