Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARIS INC. v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 164856 2009-01-20	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
The spirit of the rule on reinstatement pending appeal animates the proceedings once the Labor Arbiter issues the decision containing an order of reinstatement. The immediacy of its execution needs no further elaboration. Reinstatement pending appeal necessitates its immediate execution during the pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble purpose. At the same time, any attempt on the part of the employer to evade or delay its execution, as observed in Panuncillo and as what actually transpired in Kimberly,[23] Composite,[24] Air Philippines,[25] and Roquero,[26] should not be countenanced.
	GR NO. 159919 2007-08-08	COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Article 223 (3rd paragraph) of the Labor Code,[33] as amended by Section 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6715,[34] and Section 2 of the NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals under R.A. No. 6715, Amending the Labor Code,[35] provide that an order of reinstatement by the Labor Arbiter is immediately executory even pending appeal. The Court explained the rationale of the law in Aris (Phil.) Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission:[36]
	GR NO. 148247 2006-08-07	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. ENRICO E. ZAMORA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
x x x Then, by and pursuant to the same power (police power), the State may authorize an immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although temporarily since the appeal may be decided in favor of the appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of the dismissed or separated employee and his family.[38]