FACTS:

In this case, Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. (Daikoku) filed a petition for review seeking to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing Daikoku's appeal from the resolutions of the NLRC. The case originated from the dismissal of respondent Alberto J. Raza, who worked as a company driver for Daikoku and was assigned to serve as the personal driver of the company president, Mamuro Ono. Alberto parked the company vehicle at his own residence one night instead of at the condominium parking area where he usually parked it. When Ono asked him about it the next day, Alberto lied and said he parked it in the usual parking area but at the wrong slot. Alberto received a show-cause notice and submitted his written explanation, owning up to the lie and apologizing. Following an investigation, Alberto was dismissed by Daikoku for "dishonesty" and "other work-related performance offenses." Alberto filed a case for illegal dismissal and the labor arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal unlawful and ordering Daikoku to reinstate Alberto with backwages. Daikoku appealed to the NLRC, which initially dismissed the appeal but reinstated it upon motion for reconsideration. The NLRC reversed the labor arbiter's decision and ordered Daikoku to pay backwages to Alberto for its failure to reinstate him pending appeal. Both parties sought reconsideration but only Alberto's motion was denied. Daikoku filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed the petition and denied Daikoku's motion for reconsideration. Daikoku filed this petition for review assailing the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

1. Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion when it stated that the decision of the NLRC against the respondents already attained finality?

2. Is the grant of back wages to the respondent unjust, baseless, and inequitable?

RULING:

1. No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it stated that the decision of the NLRC against the respondents already attained finality. The NLRC resolution denying Daikoku's motion for reconsideration became final and executory as Daikoku's motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. As such, the decision of the Labor Arbiter for the reinstatement of the respondent remains in force.

2. The grant of back wages to the respondent is not unjust, baseless, and inequitable. The respondent was found to have been unlawfully dismissed, and it is established jurisprudence that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to receive back wages from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement.

PRINCIPLES:

• An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to receive back wages from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement.