View full case

ROGELIO BARONDA v. CA

FACTS:

Rogelio Baronda, an employee of HIDECO Sugar Milling Co., Inc., caused a total factory blackout after accidentally hitting transmission lines while operating a dump truck. HIDECO found Baronda guilty of negligence and terminated his employment. Baronda filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, and the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in his favor, ordering his reinstatement. HIDECO filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Baronda was reinstated and filed a motion for execution to enforce the decision. The Voluntary Arbitrator denied Baronda's motion but granted HIDECO's motion to enforce the award of damages. Baronda filed a second motion for execution, seeking payment of unpaid wages, 13th-month pay, and bonuses. The Voluntary Arbitrator granted the motion and ordered HIDECO to pay the amounts. HIDECO filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, and the CA annulled the order of the Voluntary Arbitrator. HIDECO appealed, and the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, declaring that the reinstatement aspect of the decision was not immediately executory pending appeal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the CA erred in granting HIDECO's petition for certiorari despite its procedural flaws.

  2. Whether or not the reinstatement aspect of the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision was executory pending appeal.

  3. Whether or not the CA erred in considering the writ of execution as issued for the satisfaction of backwages instead of for reinstatement wages.

  4. Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the reinstatement aspect of the decision of the voluntary arbitrator is not immediately executory.

  5. Whether or not the private respondent was denied due process of law.

  6. Whether the remedy of certiorari is available in this case

  7. Whether HIDECO's petition for certiorari was timely filed

  8. Whether the order of reinstatement by the Voluntary Arbitrator was immediately executory

  9. Whether or not the reinstatement decree of the Voluntary Arbitrator pending appeal is immediately executory.

RULING:

  1. HIDECO's proper recourse was to appeal by petition for review; hence, the CA erred in granting HIDECO's petition for certiorari.

  2. The order issued by the Voluntary Arbitrator for reinstatement was final and executory after 10 calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision. Thus, the reinstatement aspect of the decision was executory pending appeal.

  3. The CA erred in considering the writ of execution as issued for the satisfaction of backwages instead of for reinstatement wages.

  4. The CA erred in ruling that the reinstatement aspect of the decision of the voluntary arbitrator is not immediately executory.

  5. The private respondent was not denied due process of law.

  6. The remedy of certiorari is not available in this case as HIDECO failed to establish that its case falls within any of the exceptional situations where the remedy of certiorari is necessary, such as irreparable damages, capricious exercise of judgment, danger of failure of justice, etc.

  7. HIDECO's petition for certiorari was not timely filed as it was filed 56 days after the denial by the Voluntary Arbitrator of the motion for reconsideration. Thus, HIDECO forfeited its right to appeal.

  8. The order of reinstatement by the Voluntary Arbitrator was immediately executory, regardless of the filing of a motion for reconsideration or appeal. This is provided by Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715. The immediate reinstatement of an employee pending appeal is in line with the constitutional right to security of tenure and the State's duty to protect labor and enhance social justice.

  9. The reinstatement decree of the Voluntary Arbitrator pending appeal is immediately executory upon receipt of the award or decision by the parties. The court emphasized that voluntary arbitration takes precedence over other dispute settlement devices. The reinstatement order by the Voluntary Arbitrator should have the same authority, force, and effect as that of the reinstatement order by the Labor Arbiter. The court also cited the 2001 Procedural Guidelines in the Execution of Voluntary Arbitration Awards/Decisions and the 2005 NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings to support its position.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The proper remedy from a final order issued by the Voluntary Arbitrator is to appeal to the CA by petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

  • Article 262-A of the Labor Code provides that the award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator shall be final and executory after 10 calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties.

  • Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

  • The remedy of certiorari is available in exceptional situations where the appeal is not an adequate remedy or there is danger of failure of justice. This includes cases where irreparable damages, capricious exercise of judgment, or public interest is involved.

  • The timely filing of an appeal is required for it to be valid and for the higher court to have jurisdiction to review the judgment.

  • The reinstatement aspect of a decision or award by a Voluntary Arbitrator is immediately executory, regardless of the filing of a motion for reconsideration or appeal. This is in line with the constitutional right to security of tenure and the State's duty to protect labor and enhance social justice.

  • The State may authorize an immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated employee to stop the continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of the employee and their family.

  • Voluntary arbitration takes precedence over other dispute settlement devices and is mandated by the Philippine Constitution.

  • The reinstatement order by the Voluntary Arbitrator has the same authority, force, and effect as that of the reinstatement order by the Labor Arbiter.

  • The 2001 Procedural Guidelines in the Execution of Voluntary Arbitration Awards/Decisions and the 2005 NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings support the immediate executory nature of the Voluntary Arbitrator's reinstatement decree.