View full case

AUGUSTO EVANGELISTA v. NLRC

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by private respondent Arturo Mendoza against petitioner Augusto Evangelista. This complaint was filed in April 1977 and eventually reached the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari. On July 30, 1990, the Supreme Court decided in favor of private respondent, and this decision became final upon denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration on May 13, 1991.

Afterward, private respondent filed a motion seeking clarification on the salary scale to be applied in computing the three years backwages awarded to him. Private respondent cited the decision in the case of De Jesus vs. Philippine National Construction Corporation, wherein the award of backwages was based on the latest pay scale of the employee's position. On July 24, 1991, the Court granted private respondent's motion for clarification and modified the decision accordingly.

As a result, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the reversal of the resolution. Petitioner argued that he was not given a copy of the motion for clarification and that he was not required to comment on it, thus violating his right to due process. Petitioner also disagreed with the computation of the award of backwages based on the current wage levels, asserting that it should be based on the wage level in 1977 when private respondent was illegally dismissed.

The Court found merit in petitioner's motion, citing the case of Paramount Vinyl Products Corp. vs. NLRC, which stated that the determination of the salary base for the computation of backwages requires an application of judicial precedents defining the term "backwages." It was clarified that an unqualified award of backwages means that the employee should be paid at the wage rate at the time of his dismissal. Salary differentials are not allowed, and illegally dismissed employees are entitled to receive their backwages without any deductions or qualifications.

Thus, the motion for reconsideration was granted, and the resolution dated July 24, 1991, was set aside. The award of backwages to private respondent was ordered to be computed at the rate of the wage levels prevailing in 1977 when he was illegally dismissed.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether petitioner was deprived of his right to due process in the resolution of private respondent's motion for clarification.

  2. Whether the award of backwages should be based on the current wage levels or on the wage levels prevailing at the time of private respondent's illegal dismissal in 1977.

RULING:

  1. Petitioner was deprived of his right to due process in the resolution of private respondent's motion for clarification.

  2. The award of backwages should be based on the wage levels prevailing at the time of private respondent's illegal dismissal in 1977.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of the salary base for the computation of backwages requires an application of judicial precedents defining the term "backwages."

  • An unqualified award of backwages means that the employee is paid at the wage rate at the time of his dismissal.

  • Salary differentials are not allowed in the award of backwages.

  • Illegally dismissed employees are to be paid their backwages without deduction and qualification as to any wage increases or other benefits that may have been received by their co-workers who were not dismissed or did not go on strike.