G.R. No. L-20188. April 29, 1966
PETER C. SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., COL. JOSE P. RUEDA AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.
DIZON, J.:
the order (penned by Judge Bugayong) and resolution en
banc of the Court of Industrial Relations dated March 26
and June 13, 1962, respectively, in so far as they denied
him back wages following his reinstatement as temporary
guard of respondent San Miguel Brewery, Inc.
In CIR Case No. 647-ULP, the respondent court rendered a decision on June 12, 1957, the dispositive part
of which reads as follows:
“The respondents are hereby directed
to reinstate Peter C. Santos to take the
place of Carlos Abelardo as a regular security guard and to pay him back wages from
the time of his actual reinstatement. Furthermore, the respondents or their agents
and representatives are hereby directed to
cease and desist from committing similar
unfair labor practices.” (Italics Supplied)
Their motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned
decision having been denied, respondents San Miguel Corporation, Inc., and Col. Rueda appealed to Us (G. R. No. L-12682).
On August 16, 1957 We dismissed the appeal on the ground
that the questions raised were factual and, besides, the petition was without merit. A motion for reconsideration of
our resolution was denied, but, upon a second motion for
reconsideration based on the claim that “the Court of In-
dustrial Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion and
in excess of its jurisdiction by directing the employment of
respondent Peter C. Santos as a permanent security guard when
he was discharged as a temporary guard—an affirmative action
which clearly exceeded the basic objective of ‘effectuation of
the policies’ of Republic Act No, 875”, the petition was given
due course; and on August 31, 1961 We rendered judgment, the
pertinent portion of which is as follows:
* * * * * * *
“ERROR 4.—We find this to be meritorious.
“The
records show that Santos was employed as temporary guard, on and off
for short durations between December 16, 1952 and February 3, 1955. On
the date of his separation from the service, he was still occupying the
position of temporary guard. There is no question that, having been the
subject of unfair labor practice, Santos is entitled to reinstatement.
However, the company cannot be required to appoint said dismissed
employee to a position which he had not previously occupied.
Reinstatement, in its generally accepted sense, refers to a restoration
to a state from which one has been removed or separated; it is the
return to the position from which he was removed.[4] Santos, therefore, should be ordered reinstated to his former position of
temporary guard.“With this modification, the appealed
decision and confirmatory resolution of
the Court a quo are hereby affirmed, without costs.”
On September 30, 1961, after the record of the
case had been returned to the respondent court, petitioner
filed an ex-parte motion praying that respondent San Miguel
Brewery, Inc. be directed to determine his backwages from
the date of his dismissal on February 3, 1955 until actually reinstated, and to deposit the resulting amount with Us
or pay it either directly to petitioner or thru his counsel.
Respondent
company reinstated Santos on October 16, 1961 as evening guard in its
Pandacan compound, but opposed the computation of backwages claiming
that under our decision in G. R. L-12682 (supra) petitioner was not
entitled to backwages but only to reinstatement as temporary guard. The
matter having been submitted for resolution, the respondent court ruled
on March 26, 1962 that the case, pursuant to our decision in G. R. No.
L-12682, should be considered closed and terminated since petitioner
was not entitled to backwages but to reinstatement only. After the
denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said order, he
took the present appeal.
In their answer to the petition for certiorari,
respondents corporation and Rueda claimed that under our decision
already referred to, petitioner was not entitled to backwages. The
respondent court relied upon the same defense.
It is clear from the foregoing that the decision of
the respondent court in CIR Case No, 647-ULP granted petitioner Santos two reliefs, namely, reinstatement as a regular
security guard, and payment of backwages. Upon the other
hand, resolving the appeal taken by respondents San Miguel
Brewery, Inc. and Jose P. Rueda on August 31, 1961, We modified the aforesaid decision only in so far as it directed
petitioner’s reinstatement as a regular security guard, for
the reason that, at the time of his dismissal by said respondents, he was merely a temporary security guard, and We
said: “With this modification, the appealed decision and
confirmatory resolution of the court a quo are hereby affirmed, without costs.” It is clear, therefore, that the
appealed decision in said case was affirmed in so far as it
granted backwages to petitioner Santos, and our decision
on the matter having become final and executory, there is
now no way of reversing it or modifying it in that particular respect.
Wherefore, the order and resolution appealed from
are hereby reversed and set aside. With costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
[4] Vol. 36, Words and Phrases, Perm, ed., p. 730, and cases cited therein.