[A.C. No. 4826. October 17, 2000]

ROSALIA J. VILLARUEL, et al. vs. ATTY. JOSE AGUILA GRAPILON, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 17 2000.

A.C No. 4826 (Rosalia J. Villaruel, et al vs. Atty. Jose Aguila Grapilon, et al.)

The parties have once again come to this Court, this time raising an issue on the correct computation of due benefits owing to complainants following the resolution, dated 30 April 1999, of the Court which has allowed respondents to pay separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

It might be recalled that in the resolution of 27 January 1999, the Court resolved:

"1. To DISMISS all the charges against Atty. Jose Grapilon for lack of merit;

"2. To DIRECT Atty. Grapilon to immediately transfer, or cause the transfer of the funds of the IBP Savings and Loan Association from his name to the name of the Association, its Board of Directors or its duly authorized representatives;

"3. To DIRECT the IBP Board of Governors to reinstate complainants to their former positions;

"4 To DIRECT complainants to pay a FINE of P2,000 00 each for precipitately seeking media attention to air their complaints, and

"5 To DIRECT the IBP Board of Governors to fully implement the status quo ante order of 03 February 1998 by paying the salaries of complainants from 10 January 1998 until their reinstatement to service or the payment of separation pay, as the case may be, and to ADMONISH the IBP Board of Governors for its failure to comply with said status quo ante order of 03 February 1998."

Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP") and the IBP Board of Governors, the Court, in its 30th April 1999 resolution, has declared:

"WHEREFORE, the motion for a reconsideration of the Court's resolution, dated 27 January 1999, is partly granted by allowing respondents to pay complainants their separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. In all other respects, the resolution of the Court is maintained."

The parties could not agree on the specific amount of monetary amounts thereby due complainants, and an attempt to have the matter settled amicably proved to be futile.

The IBP and its Board of Governors outlined the points in dispute to be -

"WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES (AND ITS ALLEGED COMPONENTS SUCH AS 13TH MONTH PAY, HOLIDAY PAY AND SICK LEAVE BENEFITS), CONSIDERING THE RESOLUTION DATED 30 APRIL 1999 EXPRESSLY ALLOWING RESPONDENTS IBP AND IBP BOARD TO SIMPLY PAY PETITIONERS SEPARATION PAY IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT.

"ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES AND ITS ALLEGED COMPONENTS SUCH AS 13TH MONTH PAY, HOLIDAY PAY AND SICK LEAVE BENEFITS, WHETHER OR NOT THE CORRECT SALARY BASE TO BE USED IN COMPUTING FOR THE BACKWAGES AND ITS ALLEGED COMPONENTS IS THE LATEST SALARY RATE FOR PETITIONERS'RESPECTIVE POSITIONS.

"ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES AND ITS ALLEGED COMPONENTS COMPUTED AT THE LATEST SALARY RATE FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS, WHETHER OR NOT SAID BASE SALARY SHOULD INCLUDE THE THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00) ACROSS-THE-BOARD INCREASE GRANTED TO QUALIFIED IBP EMPLOYEES.

"WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF SICK LEAVE BENEFITS FOR 1998 AND 1999 AS AN ALLEGED COMPONENT OF BACKWAGES CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENTS IBP AND IBP BOARD'S POLICY PROVIDES THAT ONLY EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY WORKING ARE ENTITLED TO SICK LEAVE BENEFITS."

It is the stand of respondents that, by virtue of the 30th April 1999 resolution of the Court, they are no longer required to pay complainants back salaries but only separation pay. This contention is without merit. Clearly, the separation pay has been meant to only be "in lieu of" reinstatement and not an alternative to the payment of backwages. The status quo ante order of 03 February 1998, issued by this Court which respondents failed to carry out has warranted the payment of back salaries, in addition to separation pay, reckoned from complainants' preventive suspension "with pay" until the finality of the 30th April 1999 resolution of this Court. 1 See Mabeza vs. NLRC, 271 SCRA 670.

In Rasonable vs. NLRC, 2 253 SCRA 815.the Court held:

"As the law stands now, an employee who has been illegally dismissed after the effectivity of R.A. 6715 shall be entitled to reinstatement, full backwages and other benefits for the entire period that he was out of work and until actual reinstatement. However, in lieu of reinstatement, petitioner may instead be awarded separation pay. Separation pay is the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance from the service and is designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is looking for another employment. The grant of separation pay does not preclude an award for backwages for the latter represents the amount of earnings lost by reason of the unjustified dismissal. Additionally, a dismissed employee is entitled to 13th month pay." 3 At pp. 821-822.

Relative to the computation of backwages, the base figure for such computation should include, conformably with our ruling in Paramount Vinyl Products Corp. vs. NLRC, 4 190 SCRA 525.not only the basic salary but also the regular allowances that were being regularly received, such as the emergency living allowances and the 13th month pay mandated by law, but exclusive, consistently with the holding in General Baptist Bible College vs. NLRC, 5 219 SCRA 549.of leave benefits and across-the-board increases granted during the pendency of this case.

WHEREFORE, respondents Integrated Bar of the Philippines and IBP Board of Governors are directed to pay petitioners the amounts due them computed in accordance with the foregoing disquisition of the Court.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com