ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 126561. June 7, 2000]

DANDY V. QUIJANO vs. MERCURY DRUG CORP., et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 126561 (Dandy V. Quijano vs. Mercury Drug Corporation and National Labor Relations Commission, First Division.)

Petitioner filed several letter-complaints before this Court protesting about his continued non-reinstatement and non-payment of the monetary award granted to him by the decision of this Court. However, as per private respondent's Manifestation, it has already complied with its obligation to pay the monetary award to petitioner in the sum of P746,993.73 as: (a) it had already released to petitioner the sum of P297,930.075 cash bond deposit, and (b) it had already deposited with the cashier of the NLRC the balance of P449,062.98 for proper disposition.

Out of the remaining P449,062.98 still due, the labor arbiter directed the release of P250,660.62 to the petitioner.1 April 3, 2000 Order: Rollo, pp. 687-692. The balance of P198,402.36 was still subject of litigation as the private respondent claims that this amount should be deducted from the award to answer for petitioner's MEDICARE and SSS contributions, payments for withholding tax, loans, etc. The labor arbiter gave both petitioner and private respondent five (5) days from receipt of said Order to dispute or defend, as the case may be, the amount of deduction claimed. Thus, to date, it appears that the petitioner has received a total of P548,591.37. 2 Ibid.

On the issue of reinstatement, the labor arbiter issued an order3 Rollo, pp. 733-734. on April 5, 2000, directing the private respondent to reinstate petitioner to the position of self-service attendant. The reinstatement order was impugned by the private respondent as the petitioner was allegedly not qualified for the position and there was already strained relations between the parties. The reinstatement order is now pending appeal before the NLRC.

As the NLRC has acquired jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner's reinstatement and the amount of deduction on petitioner's monetary award is subject to proof and/or dispute by the respective parties before the labor arbiter, the letter-complaints of the petitioner are thus hereby NOTED.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, labor arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac is hereby directed to determine with dispatch the amount still owing to the petitioner, if any, and to see to it that no further delay would hamper the proceedings before him. Public respondent NLRC, on the other hand, is requested to expedite the proceedings before it on the issue of petitioner's reinstatement.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE