Scribd
Upload
131 views1 page

G.R. No. 225044, October 03, 2016 Manila Doctors College V. Emmanuel M. Olores Facts

Respondent was dismissed by petitioner Manila Doctors College for alleged misconduct and incompetence. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal was illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The NLRC reversed, finding the dismissal legal. However, the CA reinstated the back wages ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the back wages, holding that even if dismissal is later found legal, an employer must still pay wages accrued during the appeal if it did not reinstate the employee as ordered pending appeal, unless the employer was not at fault for the delayed enforcement.

Uploaded by

Lara Cacal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
131 views1 page

G.R. No. 225044, October 03, 2016 Manila Doctors College V. Emmanuel M. Olores Facts

Respondent was dismissed by petitioner Manila Doctors College for alleged misconduct and incompetence. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal was illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The NLRC reversed, finding the dismissal legal. However, the CA reinstated the back wages ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the back wages, holding that even if dismissal is later found legal, an employer must still pay wages accrued during the appeal if it did not reinstate the employee as ordered pending appeal, unless the employer was not at fault for the delayed enforcement.

Uploaded by

Lara Cacal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

225044, October 03, 2016


MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE v. EMMANUEL M. OLORES

FACTS:

Respondent was a faculty member of petitioner Manila Doctors College (MDC), he


was dismissed for Grave Misconduct, Gross Inefficiency, and Incompetence, after due
investigation finding him guilty of employing a grading system that was not in accordance
with the guidelines set by MDC. Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal against
petitioners, before the NLRC, claiming that there was no just cause for his dismissal. The
Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision declaring respondent to have been illegally
dismissed. Accordingly, the LA ordered petitioners to reinstate respondent as faculty
member under the same terms and conditions of his employment, without loss of seniority
rights, and gave an option to the respondent to claim separation pay instead of
reinstatement.

Petitioners filed an appeal before the NLRC which reversed the decision of the LA
and ordered the payment to respondent of service incentive leave pay for a period of 3
years, considering petitioners' failure to prove payment thereof. Respondent sought to
collect (a) the service incentive leave pay ordered in the decision of the NLRC, and (b) the
equivalent wages from the issuance of the decision of the LA ordering reinstatement until
the finality of the decision of the NLRC reversing the LA. The NLRC deleted the award of
reinstatement backwages, it ruled that since respondent's dismissal was eventually
determined to be legal, there is no more basis for either payroll reinstatement backwages.
On appeal, the CA reversed the NLRC decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is entitled to reinstatement backwages.

HELD:

Yes. The Labor Code essentially provides that, the decision of the [LA] reinstating a
dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall
immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted
back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or
separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. However, in
the event that the LA's decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employer's duty to
reinstate the dismissed employee is effectively terminated. Notwithstanding the reversal of
the finding of illegal dismissal, an employer, who, despite the LA's order of reinstatement,
did not reinstate the employee during the pendency of the appeal up to the reversal by a
higher tribunal may still be held liable for the accrued wages of the employee, i.e., the
unpaid salary accruing up to the time of the reversal. By way of exception, an employee
may be barred from collecting the accrued wages if shown that the delay in enforcing the
reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer.

You might also like