Achilles V NLRC

G.R. No.
107225 June 2, 1995
ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ALBERTO YU and ADRIAN YU, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GERONIMO MANUEL, ARNULFO DIAZ, JAIME CARUNUNGAN
and BENJAMIN RINDON, respondents.
FACTS
ARCHILLES was maintaining a bunkhouse in the work area which served as resting place for its workers
including private respondents. In 1988 a mauling incident nearly took place involving a relative of an
employee. As a result ARCHILLES prohibited its workers from bringing any member of their family to the
bunkhouse. But despite this prohibition, private respondents continued to bring their respective families to
the bunkhouse, causing annoyance and discomfort to the other workers. 2 This was brought to the attention
of ARCHILLES.
On 11 May 1990 the management ordered private respondent to remove their families from the bunkhouse
and to explain their violation of the company rule. Private respondents remove their families from the
premises but failed to report to the management as required; instead, they absented themselves from 14 to
18 May 1990. Consequently, on 18 May 1990, ARCHILLES terminated their employment for abandonment
and for violation of the company rule regarding the use of the bunkhouse. 3
Private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
LABOR ARBITER
On 10 July 1991 the Labor Arbiter found the dismissal of private respondents illegal and ordered their
reinstatement as well as the payment to them the backwages, proportionate 13th month pay for the year
1990 and attorney's fees. 4 ARCHILLES appealed.
NLRC
On 10 September 1991 private respondent filed with public respondent National Labor Relations Commission a
motion for the issuance of a writ of execution for their immediate reinstatement, pending appeal, either
physically or in the company payroll. On 19 September 1991 ARCHILLES opposed the motion.
Since no action was taken by NLRC on the motion of 10 September 1991, private respondents filed a similar
motion on 15 July 1992. Both motions however have remained unresolved.
On 11 August 1992 NLRC vacated and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that the dismissal
of private respondents was valid since they wilfully disobeyed a lawful order of their employer requiring
them to explain their infraction of a company rule.
In the dispute part of its decision, however, NLRC ordered ARCHILLES to pay private respondents their
"withheld" salaries from 19 September 1991 when it filed its opposition to the motion for issuance of a writ of
execution until the promulgation of the NLRC Decision (11 August 1992) on the ground that the order of
reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter was immediately executory, even pending appeal. And since ARCHILLES in
its opposition alleged that actual reinstatement was no longer possible as it would affect the peace and order
situation in the steel factory, clearly, ARCHILLES had opted for payroll reinstatement of private respondents.
NLRC also ordered ARCHILLES to pay their proportionate 13th month pay for 1990 and P12,351.30
representing 10% of the total judgment award of P123,513.00 as attorney's fees. 5
ISSUE
WON THE Employees are still entitled to 13th month even if they are terminated from work.
RULING
As to the propriety of the award of a 13th month pay, paragraph 6 of the Revised Guidelines on the
Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law (P. D. 851) provides that
"(a)n employee who has resigned or whose services were terminated at any time before the payment of the
13th month pay is entitled to this monetary benefit in proportion to the length of time he worked during the
year, reckoned from the time he started working during the calendar year up to the time of his resignation or
termination from the
service . . . The payment of the 13th month pay may be demanded by the employee upon the cessation of
employer-employee relationship. This is consistent with the principle of equity that as the employer can
require the employee to clear himself of all liabilities and property accountability, so can the employee
demand the payment of all benefits due him upon the termination of the relationship."
Furthermore, Sec. 4 of the original Implementing Rules of P.D. 851 mandates employers to pay their
employees a 13th month pay not later than the 24th of December every year provided that they have
worked for at least one (1) month during a calendar year.
In effect, this statutory benefit is automatically vested in the employee who has at least worked for one month
during the calendar year. As correctly stated by the Solicitor General, such benefit may not be lost or forfeited
even in the event of the employee's subsequent dismissal for cause without violating his property rights.

Achilles V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Achilles V NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Achilles V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

107225 June 2, 1995

ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ALBERTO YU and ADRIAN YU, petitioners,

Private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

You might also like