LUNESA O. LANSANGAN AND ROCITA CENDAÑA, PETITIONERS, VS. AMKOR TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

Lansangan versus Amkor Technology Philippines

The Case

This is a labor case about two supervisory employees, Lunesa Lansangan and Rosita Cendaña, who were dismissed by their employer, Amkor Technology Philippines, after an anonymous email accused them of stealing company time. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, and the case reached the Supreme Court on the narrow but important question of backwages. The case matters because it draws a bright line between two situations that students often confuse: a dismissal that is valid, and a dismissal that is illegal. Only the second entitles an employee to full backwages, and this case explains exactly why.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the petitioners guilty of dishonesty as a form of serious misconduct and breach of trust, but nevertheless ordered their reinstatement to their former positions without backwages as a measure of equitable and compassionate relief. Only the respondent appealed the reinstatement aspect to the National Labor Relations Commission. The petitioners did not appeal the finding of guilt; instead they moved for a writ of reinstatement, and after the Labor Arbiter issued an alias writ of execution, the respondent's bank account was garnished. The National Labor Relations Commission granted the respondent's appeals, deleted the reinstatement aspect, and set aside the writs and the notice of garnishment. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the finding of misconduct but ordered the respondent to pay backwages for the period from the Labor Arbiter's decision up to the National Labor Relations Commission's decision, relying on Article 223 of the Labor Code and the Roquero case. Both parties moved for partial reconsideration, and both motions were denied. Only the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

An anonymous email was sent to the General Manager of Amkor Technology Philippines, detailing allegations of malfeasance against its supervisory employees Lunesa Lansangan and Rosita Cendaña for stealing company time. The company investigated and required the petitioners to submit their written explanation. In handwritten letters, the petitioners admitted their wrongdoing.

The company then terminated the petitioners for extremely serious offenses as defined in its Code of Discipline. The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found them guilty of swiping another employee's identification card, or requesting another employee to swipe one's identification card, to gain personal advantage or in the interest of cheating, an offense of dishonesty punishable as serious misconduct and fraud or breach of trust. The Arbiter dismissed the complaint but ordered reinstatement without backwages out of equitable and compassionate relief, citing the petitioners' prior clean records, their show of remorse, the harshness of the penalty, and the defective attendance monitoring system.

Only the respondent appealed the reinstatement order. The petitioners did not appeal their guilt, and even sought execution of the reinstatement. The National Labor Relations Commission deleted the reinstatement and set aside the writs and garnishment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of guilt but ordered backwages for the period from the Arbiter's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission's decision. The petitioners now insist that backwages should run further, invoking the Roquero case.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in limiting the payment of backwages to the period from the Labor Arbiter's decision up to the National Labor Relations Commission's decision, instead of extending it as in the Roquero case.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in concluding that the petitioners committed serious misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, and breach of trust, and in holding that the penalty of dismissal was proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 223 of the Labor Code provides:

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.

This provision is the interim relief the Court of Appeals relied on, and the Court explains that it applies only while an illegal dismissal case is pending appeal, not where no illegal dismissal has been found.

Article 279 of the Labor Code provides:

In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

This is the provision that actually governs the claim, and it conditions full backwages on a finding that the employee was unjustly dismissed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition fails. The Arbiter's finding that the petitioners committed dishonesty as a form of serious misconduct and breach of trust had become final, because the petitioners never appealed it to the National Labor Relations Commission; they even moved to execute the reinstatement aspect. It was only the respondent that appealed, and only on the propriety of reinstatement, and it succeeded. The Court held that Roquero and Article 223 find no application here. Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief granted to a dismissed or separated employee while the illegal dismissal case is pending appeal, as happened in Roquero. It does not apply where there is no finding of illegal dismissal, as in this case.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the finding of serious misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, and breach of trust, and held that dismissal was a valid penalty. The Arbiter had found the dismissal valid, and that finding had become final. Following Article 279, the Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to full backwages because their dismissal was not found to be illegal. The Court cited Agabon versus National Labor Relations Commission for the rule that payment of backwages and other benefits is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed.

Doctrine

First, full backwages under Article 279 of the Labor Code are owed only to an employee who is unjustly dismissed. Where the dismissal is valid, there is no legal basis for backwages, and any reinstatement granted is a matter of equity, not of right.

Second, Article 223 of the Labor Code provides an interim relief, immediate execution of the reinstatement aspect pending appeal, and it operates only in a pending illegal dismissal case. It is not a source of backwages where no illegal dismissal has been found.

Third, a finding of guilt that is not appealed becomes final and binds the employee, and the employee cannot later attack the penalty of dismissal on appeal.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Court affirmed the ruling that the petitioners, whose dismissal was valid, are not entitled to full backwages beyond what the Court of Appeals had already ordered.

Remember This

Memorize this line: backwages follow only an unjust dismissal, so a valid dismissal carries no right to backwages. Examiners use this case to test whether you can separate the interim relief of Article 223 from the substantive right under Article 279, and whether you know that an unappealed finding of guilt becomes final.