GSIS EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION AND PEDRO OLASE, PETITIONERS, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS..

GSIS Employees' Association and Olase versus Government Service Insurance System

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari with mandamus brought by the GSIS Employees' Association and Pedro Olase against the Government Service Insurance System and the Court of Industrial Relations. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to review the orders of the Court of Industrial Relations that stayed the execution of a judgment ordering Olase's reinstatement, and later to compel that judgment's execution. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when an award of the Court of Industrial Relations becomes self-executory, and when a stay of execution may lawfully be granted under the labor law.

Procedural History

Pedro Olase was dismissed by the Government Service Insurance System. He brought a case in the Court of Industrial Relations, which rendered judgment on 7 January 1960 ordering his reinstatement but denying back wages. Both parties moved for reconsideration, and the Court en banc denied both motions on 18 February 1960. Both parties then appealed to the Supreme Court.

When Olase reported for work on 27 July 1960, the Government Service Insurance System refused to accept him. He filed a motion for execution on 3 October 1960, invoking the labor law's provision that an appeal by certiorari does not stay execution. The Court of Industrial Relations stayed execution on 16 November 1960 upon a bond of 1,000 pesos, and denied reconsideration on 8 December 1960. Olase then filed this petition for certiorari with mandamus in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decided the appeals on 31 October 1961, affirming the order of reinstatement and affirming the denial of back wages. That decision became final and executory on 18 November 1961. Olase was reinstated on 22 January 1962. He then moved for execution of the judgment to collect salaries from 27 July 1960 to the date of actual reinstatement. The Court of Industrial Relations granted the motion on 28 April 1962 and affirmed it en banc on 11 June 1962. The Government Service Insurance System appealed that award by certiorari in a separate case, and this petition was then resolved.

Facts

Pedro Olase was dismissed from the service by the Government Service Insurance System. The Court of Industrial Relations found no substantial evidence to support the accusation against him and ordered his reinstatement, but denied back wages because the dismissal, though based on a bad judgment, was not motivated by malice and was done in good faith.

After the denial of the motions for reconsideration, Olase reported for work on 27 July 1960, but the Government Service Insurance System refused to accept him. He sought execution of the judgment. The Court of Industrial Relations stayed execution, citing special and valid grounds, and required a bond of 1,000 pesos to guarantee whatever lawful claim Olase might have.

The Supreme Court later affirmed the reinstatement but also affirmed the denial of back wages. Olase was reinstated on 22 January 1962. The Court of Industrial Relations then ordered the payment of back wages from 27 July 1960 to the date of actual reinstatement at 230 pesos per month. The Government Service Insurance System challenged that order in a separate certiorari proceeding.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations may stay the execution of a judgment of reinstatement for special reasons upon the filing of a bond.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari with mandamus should be granted to compel execution of the judgment pending appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of Commonwealth Act Number 103, as amended, provides:

The institution of such an appeal shall not, however, stay the execution of the award, order, or decision sought to be reviewed, unless for special reasons the Court shall order that the execution be stayed, in which event the Court in its discretion, may require the appellant to deposit with the clerk of court such amount.

This provision is the basis for determining whether the judgment of reinstatement should be executed pending appeal, and whether a stay may be granted upon a bond.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court recognized that under Section 14 of Commonwealth Act Number 103, an appeal does not stay execution unless for special reasons the Court orders a stay, in which event it may require a deposit or bond. The Court of Industrial Relations had found special and valid grounds for the stay and required a bond of 1,000 pesos. The Court did not disturb that determination in this petition.

On the second issue, the Court noted that Olase had already been reinstated on 22 January 1962, and that the Government Service Insurance System had appealed by certiorari from the order and resolution awarding back wages. Without passing upon the legality of the award of back wages during the pendency of that appeal, the Court dismissed the petition.

Doctrine

Under Section 14 of Commonwealth Act Number 103, as amended, the institution of an appeal does not stay the execution of an award, order, or decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, unless for special reasons the Court orders that execution be stayed. When a stay is ordered, the Court may, in its discretion, require the appellant to deposit with the clerk of court such amount, or file a bond, to ensure compliance with the decision. A judgment of reinstatement may thus be stayed pending appeal upon a showing of special reasons and the posting of a bond.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs, since Olase had already been reinstated and the award of back wages was the subject of a separate pending appeal.

Remember This

An appeal from the Court of Industrial Relations does not stay execution unless special reasons are shown and a bond is posted. Examiners use this case to test the self-executory nature of labor awards and the discretion to stay execution under Section 14 of Commonwealth Act Number 103.