Friday, June 22, 2012

The rule on reinstatement of illegally dismissed worker

See -

"x x x.

Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that in case there is an order of reinstatement, the employer must admit the dismissed employee under the same terms and conditions, or merely reinstate the employee in the payroll. The order shall be immediately executory. Thus, 3rd Alert cannot escape liability by simply invoking that Navia did not report for work. The law states that the employer must still reinstate the employee in the payroll. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service could be awarded as an alternative.[5]

Since the proceedings below indicate that 3rd Alert failed to adduce additional evidence to show that it tried to reinstate Navia, either physically or in the payroll, we adopt as correct the finding that there was no earnest effort to reinstate Navia. The CA was correct in affirming the judgment of the NLRC in this regard.

We also take note that 3rd Alert resorted to legal tactics to frustrate the execution of the labor arbiter’s order; for about four (4) years, it evaded the obligation to reinstate Navia.  By so doing, 3rd Alert has made a mockery of justice.  We thus find it proper, under the circumstances, to impose treble costs against 3rd Alert for its utter disregard to comply with the writ of execution.  To reiterate, no indication exists showing that 3rd Alert exerted any efforts to reinstate Navia; worse, 3rd Alert’s lame excuse of having sent a notice of reinstatement to a certain “Biznar” only compounded the intent to mislead the courts.

x x x."