BERNITO MORALES, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROSARIO GEROCHE, AND/OR GEROCHE SCHOOL BUS, RESPONDENTS.

In this case petitioner questions the failure of public
respondent to order his reinstatement despite the finding of illegal dismissal
as well as the correctness of the other awards.

Petitioner was hired on May 2, 1984 as a conductor of the school
buses owned and operated by private respondent. On February 12, 1987, while petitioner was working inside the
garage compound, a backward-moving bus accidentally hit him, fracturing his
thigh bone. The injury incapacitated
petitioner from work for almost eight (8) months.

Having recuperated in the
early part of December, 1987, petitioner reported back for work, but being
assigned to do heavy chores which his injury did not permit him to do, he asked
for a leave of absence. Much to his
surprise, when he reported back for work on December 31, 1987, he was informed
by private respondent that he was dismissed effective January 3, 1988.

On January 4, 1988, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against private respondent before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). After the parties
submitted their respective position papers and supporting affidavits, Labor
Arbiter Edgardo M. Madriaga rendered on June 27, 1988 a decision in
petitioner’s favor, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant (petitioner) is
declared to have been illegally dismissed by (private) respondent and is hereby
given the option of reinstatement to the position of Garage Helper with
backwages, or separation pay in accordance
with law.

Respondents are hereby ordered to pay all of complainant’s money
claims and attorney’s fees in either case, excepting overtime pay and all money
claims where respondents have proof of payments.

SO ORDERED.”

Not satisfied therewith, the private respondent appealed to the
NLRC the assailed decision but the NLRC affirmed the same with modifications as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, except for some modifications above-discussed, the
Decision assailed of is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, respondents-appellants are hereby directed to pay
complainant-appellee:

(1) separation pay
in the amount equivalent to one half (1/2) month salary for every year of
service, a fraction of six (6) months considered as one (1) whole year, and one
year backwages without qualification;

(2) thirteenth
(13th) month pay pro-rated as to the number of months of actual service
rendered during the year, less the amount of P300.00 admitted to have been
previously received by the complainant as Christmas bonus;

(3) the amount by
which the complainant was underpaid during his service to the respondents; and

(4) the attorney’s
fees which in no case shall exceed 10% of the total awards.

SO ORDERED.”^[1]

A motion for reconsideration of the said decision was denied on
August 16, 1989.

Hence, this petition where the petitioner raised a singular
issue: “Did the NLRC gravely abuse its
discretion in (1) not reinstating petitioner and granting him, in lieu thereof,
only separation pay and one year backwages and (2) not awarding petitioner
Holiday Pay and Service Incentive Leave benefits?”^[2]

There is no question as to illegal dismissal of petitioner as
found by the NLRC, which findings are conclusive in this proceedings.

In this connection, the NLRC also made the following observations
in its decision:

“x x x From the cursory examination of the pleadings below as well
as the Memorandum on Appeal and the Opposition thereto, it is apparent that
parties and their privies have taken the instant suit rather personally,
exchanging in the process intermittent personal attacks. To insist in reinstating the complainant
would only but exacerbate and aggravate the already precarious state of
relationship of parties. In this light,
We feel that instead of reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one half
month pay for every year of service should be awarded herein
complainant-appellee. This grant of
separation pay, however, did not redress the injury that is intended to be
relieved by the remedy of backwages, that is the loss of earnings that would
have accrued to the illegally dismissed complainant during the period between
his dismissal and supposed reinstatement. It must be borne in mind that findings of illegal dismissal carries with
it the remedial measures of (1) reinstatement to the former or at least
equivalent position and (2) backwages from the time of illegal dismissal until
actual reinstatement. These two
remedies are separate and distinct from each other. The appropriateness of one will not result to the
inappropriateness of the other. Put a
little differently, the payment of backwages is a form of relief that restores
the income that was lost by reason of unlawful
dismissal; separation pay in contrast is oriented towards the immediate future,
the transitional period the dismissed employee must undergo before locating a
replacement job.”^[3]

The foregoing findings of the NLRC are also binding and
conclusive on this Court. This Court
not being a trier of facts cannot consider the claim of petitioner at this
stage that actually there is no ill-will
between him and private respondent. In similar occasions in the past this Court held that a reinstatement
may not be appropriate or feasible in case of antipathy and antagonism between
the parties.^[4]

The Court, therefore, sustains the findings of the NLRC in this
case that the reinstatement of petitioner to his former position is improper.

However, We disagree with the accord of one (1) year backwages
beside separation pay to the petitioner by the NLRC.

Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides inter
alia:

“x x x An employee who
is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss
of seniority rights and to his backwages computed from the time his
compensation was withheld up to the
time of his reinstatement (underscoring supplied).”

In cases of this nature, wherein the employee was ordered
reinstated without loss of seniority rights, the Court uniformly awards
backwages from the time of his separation to the time of his reinstatement but
in no case are the backwages to exceed the period corresponding to three (3)
years. In the present case, the Court
finds and so holds that it is but just and equitable that petitioner be
entitled to at least two (2) years backwages.

As to the other claims of petitioner, the Court finds that the NLRC did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion in denying the same.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in that the questioned
decision of the NLRC dated June 15, 1989 is modified by increasing the
backwages to be paid to petitioner from one (1) year to two (2) years. No costs in this instance.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Pages 19-20, Rollo.

^[2]
Page 36, Rollo.

^[3]
Pages 18-19, Rollo.

^[4]
Divine Word High School vs. NLRC, 143 SCRA 346 (1986); Bautista vs. Inciong, 158 SCRA
665 (1988).