Garcia vs Philippine Airlines, (Case Digest)

 Garcia v. Philippine Airlines,

G.R. No. 164856, 01.20.09

Subject: Labor

Facts:

PAL filed administrative charge against its employees-herein petitioners after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical Center’s Toolroom Section. PAL dismissed petitioners on October 9, 1995 for transgressing the PAL Code of Discipline.

Labor Arbiter resolved the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioner in their favor, thus ordering PAL to mmediately comply with the reinstatement aspect of the decision. NLRC dismissed petitioners’ complaint for lack of merit. Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution (Writ) respecting the reinstatement aspect and issued a Notice of Garnishment (Notice). Respondent thereupon moved to quash the Writ and to lift the Notice while petitioners moved to release the garnished amount. NLRC affirmed the validity of the Writ and the Notice issued by the Labor Arbiter but suspended and referred the action to the Rehabilitation Receiver for appropriate action.

 

Issue:

Whether petitioners may collect their wages during the period between the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC decision overturning that of the Labor Arbiter

 

Held:

Yes, no refund if pending appeal an adverse judgment is rendered against the labor.

 

Ratio:

Then, by and pursuant to the same power (police power), the State may authorize an immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although temporarily since the appeal may be decided in favor of the appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of the dismissed or separated employee and his family. 

The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment espoused by Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. in his Separate Opinion. The constitutional and statutory precepts portray the otherwise "unjust" situation as a condition affording full protection to labor.

Even outside the theoretical trappings of the discussion and into the mundane realities of human experience, the "refund doctrine" easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor Arbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. The employee, to make both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the pendency of the appeal, only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision. It is mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of insolvency.