Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARILOU S. GENUINO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 192190 2012-04-25	BILLY M. REALDA v. NEW AGE GRAPHICS REYES, J.
Nonetheless, while the CA finding that the petitioner is entitled to nominal damages as his right to procedural due process was not respected despite the presence of just causes for his dismissal is affirmed, this Court finds the CA to have erred in fixing the amount that the Company is liable to pay. The CA should have taken cognizance of the numerous cases decided by this Court where the amount of nominal damages was fixed at P30,000.00 if the dismissal was for a just cause. One of such cases is Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[15] on which the CA relied in the Assailed Decision and was reiterated in Genuino v. National Relations Commission[16] as follows: In view of Citibank's failure to observe due process, however, nominal damages are in order but the amount is hereby raised to PhP 30,000 pursuant to Agabon v. NLRC. The NLRC's order for payroll reinstatement is set aside.
	GR No. 177467 2011-03-09	PFIZER v. GERALDINE VELASCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In PFIZER's view, it should no longer be required to pay wages considering that (1) it had already previously paid an enormous sum to respondent under the writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter; (2) it was allegedly ready to reinstate respondent as of July 1, 2005 but it was respondent who unjustifiably refused to report for work; (3) it would purportedly be tantamount to allowing respondent to choose "payroll reinstatement" when by law it was the employer which had the right to choose between actual and payroll reinstatement; (4) respondent should be deemed to have "resigned" and therefore not entitled to additional backwages or separation pay; and (5) this Court should not mechanically apply Roquero but rather should follow the doctrine in Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission[18] which was supposedly "more in accord with the dictates of fairness and justice."[19]
	GR No. 168501 2011-01-31	ISLRIZ TRADING v. EFREN CAPADA DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court then stressed that as opposed to the abovementioned Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission,[33] the social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment. It then went on to examine the precarious implication of the "refund doctrine" as enunciated in Genuino, thus: [T]he "refund doctrine" easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor Arbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. The employee, to make both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the pendency of the appeal, only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision. It is mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of insolvency.
	GR No. 174833 2010-12-15	MYRNA P. MAGANA v. MEDICARD PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
True, a Division of the Court in Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission[15] diverged from Roquero by requiring refund or set-off of salaries received post-reversal of the reinstatement order.[16] However, the Court en banc in Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[17] nipped Genuino in the bud and reaffirmed the Roquero line of jurisprudence: [T]he Genuino ruling not only disregards the social justice principles behind the rule [in Article 223], but also institutes a scheme unduly favorable to management. Under such scheme, the salaries dispensed pendente lite merely serve as a bond posted in installment by the employer. For in the event of a reversal of the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering reinstatement, the employer gets back the same amount without having to spend ordinarily for bond premiums. This circumvents, if not directly contradicts, the proscription that the "posting of a bond [even a cash bond] by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement."
	GR No. 164856 2009-01-20	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
On this score, the Court's attention is drawn to seemingly divergent decisions concerning reinstatement pending appeal or, particularly, the option of payroll reinstatement. On the one hand is the jurisprudential trend as expounded in a line of cases including Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora,[10] while on the other is the recent case of Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission.[11] At the core of the seeming divergence is the application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code which reads:In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	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.