7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 1/22G.R. No. 177467.March 9, 2011.*PFIZER,INC.AND/ORREYGERARDOBACARRO,AND/ORFERDINANDCORTES,AND/ORALFREDMAGALLON, AND/OR ARISTOTLE ARCE, petitioners, vs.GERALDINE VELASCO, respondent.Labor Law Illegal Dismissals Under Article 223 of the LaborCode,anemployeeentitledtoreinstatementshalleitherbeadmittedbacktoworkunderthesametermsandconditionsprevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option ofthe employer, merely reinstated in the payroll.Under Article 223oftheLaborCode,anemployeeentitledtoreinstatementshalleither be admitted back to_______________**DesignatedasadditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeAntonioEduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order 933 dated January 24, 2011.*FIRST DIVISION.136136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. Velascowork under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior tohisdismissalorseparationor,attheoptionoftheemployer,merelyreinstatedinthepayroll.Itisestablishedinjurisprudencethatreinstatementmeansrestorationtoastateorconditionfromwhichonehadbeenremovedorseparated.Thepersonreinstatedassumesthepositionhehadoccupiedpriortohis dismissal.SameSameTheoptionoftheemployertoeffectactualorpayrollreinstatementmustbeexercisedingoodfaith.Foreseeably,anemployermaycircumventtheimmediatelyenforceablereinstatementorderoftheLaborArbiterbycrafting7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 2/22returntoworkdirectivesthatareambiguousormeanttoberejected by the employee and then disclaim liability for backwagesduetononreinstatementbycapitalizingontheemployeespurportedrefusaltowork.Insum,theoptionoftheemployertoeffectactualorpayrollreinstatementmustbeexercisedingoodfaith.SameSameAnorderforreinstatemententitlesanemployeetoreceivehisaccruedbackwagesfromthemomentthereinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same wasreversedbyahighercourtwithoutfearofrefundingwhathehadreceived.Insum,theCourtreiteratestheprinciplethatreinstatementpendingappealnecessitatesthatitmustbeimmediatelyselfexecutorywithoutneedforawritofexecutionduring the pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noblepurpose, and any attempt on the part of the employer to evade ordelayitsexecutionshouldnotbeallowed.Furthermore,welikewiserestateourrulingthatanorderforreinstatemententitlesanemployeetoreceivehisaccruedbackwagesfromthemoment the reinstatement order was issued up to the date whenthe same was reversed by a higher court without fear of refundingwhat he had received.PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of theCourt of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Sycip,Salazar,Hernandez&Gatmaitanforpetitioners. Ronald Rex S. Recidoro for respondent.137VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 137Pfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoLEONARDODE CASTRO,J.:This is a petition for review on certiorari underRule45oftheRulesofCivilProceduretoannulandsetasidetheResolution1datedOctober23,2006aswellastheResolution2datedApril10,2007bothissuedbytheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.88987entitled,Pfizer,Inc.and/orReyGerardoBacarro,and/orFerdinandCortes,and/orAlfredMagallon,and/orAristotleArcev.NationalLaborRelationsCommissionSecondDivisionandGeraldineVelasco.TheOctober23,2006Resolution7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 3/22modifieduponrespondentsmotionforreconsiderationtheDecision3 dated November 23, 2005 of the Court of AppealsbyrequiringPFIZER,Inc.(PFIZER)topayrespondentswages from the date of the Labor Arbiters Decision4 datedDecember5,2003untilitwaseventuallyreversedandsetasidebytheCourtofAppeals.TheApril10,2007Resolution, on the other hand, denied PFIZERs motion forpartial reconsideration.The facts of this case, as stated in the Court of AppealsDecision dated November 23, 2005, are as follows:PrivaterespondentGeraldineL.VelascowasemployedwithpetitionerPFIZER,INC.asProfessionalHealthCareRepresentativesince1August1992.SometimeinApril2003,Velascohadamedicalworkupforherhighriskpregnancyandwassubsequentlyadvisedbedrestwhichresultedinherextending her leave of absence. Velasco filed her sick leave for theperiod from 26 March to 18 June 2003, her vacation leave from 19June to 20 June 2003, and leave without pay from 23 June to 14July 2003.On26June2003,whileVelascowasstillonleave,PFIZERthroughitsAreaSalesManager,hereinpetitionerFerdinandCortez,_______________1Rollo, pp. 4244.2Id., at pp. 6566.3Id.,atpp.307323pennedbyAssociateJusticeRosmariD.CarandangwithAssociate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Monina ArevaloZenarosa, concurring.4Id., at pp. 187201.138138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. VelascopersonallyservedVelascoaShowcauseNoticedated25June2003.Asidefrommentioningaboutaninvestigationonherpossibleviolationsofcompanyworkrulesregardingunauthorizeddealsand/ordiscountsinmoneyorsamplesandunauthorizedwithdrawaland/orpulloutofstocksandinstructing her to submit her explanation on the matter within 48hoursfromreceiptofthesame,thenoticealsoadvisedherthatshe was being placed under preventive suspension for 30 days orfromthatdayto6August2003andconsequentlyorderedto7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 4/22surrenderthefollowingaccountabilities1)CompanyCar,2)Samples andPromats,3)CRF/ER/VEHICLE/SOA/POSAP/MPOAand other related Company Forms, 4) Cash Card, 5) Caltex Card,and6)MPOA/TPOARevolvingTravelFund.Thefollowingday,petitionerCorteztogetherwithoneEfrenDarianoretrievedtheabovementioned accountabilities from Velascos residence.In response, Velasco sent a letter addressed to Cortez dated 28June2003denyingthecharges.Inherletter,VelascoclaimedthatthetransactionwithMercuryDrug,MagsaysayBranchcovered by her check (no. 1072) in the amount of P23,980.00 wasmerelytoaccommodatetwoundisclosedpatientsofacertain Dr.Renato Manalo. In support thereto, Velasco attached the Doctorsletter and the affidavit of the latters secretary.On12July2003,VelascoreceivedaSecondShowcauseNoticeinformingherofadditionaldevelopmentsintheirinvestigation.Accordingtothenotice,acertainCarlitoJomenexecutedanaffidavitpointingtoVelascoastheonewhotransactedwithaprintingshoptoprintPFIZERdiscountcoupons.JomenalsopresentedtextmessagesoriginatingfromVelascoscompanyissuedcellphonereferringtotheprintingofthe said coupons. Again, Velasco was given 48 hours to submit herwritten explanation on the matter. On 16 July 2003, Velasco sentalettertoPFIZERviaAboitizcourierserviceaskingforadditional time to answer the second Showcause Notice.That same day, Velasco filed a complaint for illegal suspensionwithmoneyclaimsbeforetheRegionalArbitrationBranch.Thefollowing day, 17 July 2003, PFIZER sent her a letter inviting hertoadisciplinaryhearingtobeheldon22July2003.VelascoreceiveditunderprotestandinformedPFIZERviathereceivingcopy of the said letter that she had lodged a complaint against thelatterandthattheissuesthatmayberaisedintheJuly22hearing can be tackled during the hearingofhercaseoratthepreliminary confer139VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 139Pfizer, Inc. vs. Velascoencesetfor5and8ofAugust2003.ShelikewiseoptedtowithholdansweringtheSecondShowcauseNotice.On25July2003, Velasco received a Third Showcause Notice, together withcopies of the affidavits of two Branch Managers of Mercury Drug,askingherforhercommentwithin48hours.Finally,on29 July2003,PFIZERinformedVelascoofitsManagementDecision7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 5/22terminating her employment.On5December2003,theLaborArbiterrendereditsdecisiondeclaringthedismissalofVelascoillegal,orderingherreinstatementwithbackwagesandfurtherawardingmoralandexemplarydamageswithattorneysfees.Onappeal,theNLRCaffirmed the same but deleted the award of moral and exemplarydamages.5ThedispositiveportionoftheLaborArbitersDecisiondated December 5, 2003 is as follows:WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendereddeclaringthatcomplainantwasillegallydismissed.Respondentsareorderedtoreinstate the complainant to her former position without loss of seniorityrights and with full backwages and to pay the complainant the following:1.Full backwages (basic salary, company benefits, all allowances asof December 5, 2003 in the amount of P572,780.00)2.13th Month Pay, Midyear, Christmas and performance bonuses inthe amount of P105,300.003.Moral damages of P50,000.004.Exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.005.AttorneysFeesof10%oftheawardexcludingdamagesintheamount of P67,808.00.The total award is in the amount of P758,080.00.6PFIZERappealedtotheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)butitsappealwasdeniedviatheNLRC_______________5Id., at pp. 307310.6Id., at p. 201.140140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoDecision7datedOctober20,2004,whichaffirmedtheLaborArbitersrulingbutdeletedtheawardfordamages,the dispositive portion of which is as follows:WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantappealandthemotionprayingforthedepositinescrowofcomplainantspayrollreinstatementareherebydeniedandtheDecisionofthe7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 6/22Labor Arbiter is affirmed with the modification that the award ofmoral and exemplary damages is deleted and attorneys fees shallbe based on the award of 13th month pay pursuant to Article IIIof the Labor Code.8PFIZERmovedforreconsiderationbutitsmotionwasdeniedforlackofmeritinaNLRCResolution9datedDecember 14, 2004.Undaunted,PFIZERfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsaspecialcivilactionfortheissuanceofawritofcertiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul and set asidetheaforementionedNLRCissuances.InaDecisiondatedNovember23,2005,theCourtofAppealsupheldthevalidityofrespondentsdismissalfromemployment,thedispositive portion of which reads as follows:WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisGRANTED.TheassailedDecisionoftheNLRCdated20October2004aswellasits Resolution of 14 December 2004 is hereby ANNULED and SETASIDE.HavingfoundtheterminationofGeraldineL.Velascosemploymentinaccordancewiththetwonoticerulepursuanttothedueprocessrequirementandwithjustcause,hercomplaintfor illegal dismissal is hereby DISMISSED.10_______________7 Id.,atpp.234248pennedbyNLRCCommissionerErnestoC.VerceleswithPresidingCommissionerLourdesC.JavierandCommissioner Tito F. Genilo, concurring.8 Id., at p. 247.9 Id., at pp. 265266.10Id., at pp. 322323.141VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 141Pfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoRespondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which theCourt of Appeals resolved in the assailed Resolution datedOctober23,2006whereinitaffirmedthevalidityofrespondentsdismissalfromemploymentbutmodifieditsearlierrulingbydirectingPFIZERtopayrespondentherwagesfromthedateoftheLaborArbitersDecisiondatedDecember5,2003uptotheCourtofAppealsDecision7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 7/22dated November 23, 2005, to wit:INVIEWWHEREOF,thedismissalofprivaterespondentGeraldine Velasco is AFFIRMED, but petitioner PFIZER, INC. isherebyorderedtopayherthewagestowhichsheisentitledtofrom the time the reinstatement order was issued until November23, 2005, the date of promulgation of Our Decision.11RespondentfiledwiththeCourtapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCivilProcedure,whichassailed the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 23,2005andwasdocketedasG.R.No.175122.Respondentspetition, questioning the Court of Appeals dismissal of hercomplaint, was denied by this Courts Second Division in aminute Resolution12 dated December 5, 2007, the pertinentportion of which states:Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced inthepetitionforreviewoncertiorari,theCourtresolvestoDENYthe petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error intheassailedjudgmenttowarranttheexerciseofthisCourtsdiscretionaryappellatejurisdiction,andforraisingsubstantiallyfactual issues.Ontheotherhand,PFIZERfiledtheinstantpetitionassailingtheaforementionedCourtofAppealsResolutionsand offering for our resolution a single legal issue, to wit:WhetherornottheCourtofAppealscommittedaseriousbutreversible error when it ordered Pfizer to pay Velasco wages fromthedateoftheLaborArbitersdecisionorderingherreinstatement until_______________11Id., at p. 43.12Rollo (G.R. No. 175122), p. 238.142142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoNovember23,2005,whentheCourtofAppealsrendereditsdecision declaring Velascos dismissal valid.13The petition is without merit.7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 8/22PFIZERarguesthat,contrarytotheCourtofAppealspronouncement in its assailed Decision dated November 23,2005, the ruling in Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.14 isnotapplicableinthecaseatbar,particularlywithregardtothenatureandconsequencesofanorderofreinstatement, to wit:Theorderofreinstatementisimmediatelyexecutory.Theunjustified refusal of the employer to reinstate a dismissedemployeeentitleshimtopaymentofhissalarieseffectivefromthetimetheemployerfailedtoreinstatehimdespitetheissuanceofawritofexecution.Unlessthereisarestrainingorderissued,itisministerialupontheLaborArbitertoimplementtheorderofreinstatement.Inthecaseatbar,norestrainingorderwasgranted.Thus,itwasmandatoryonPALtoactuallyreinstateRoqueroorreinstatehiminthepayroll. Having failed to do so, PAL must pay Roquero thesalaryheisentitledto,asifhewasreinstated,fromthetimeofthedecisionoftheNLRCuntilthefinalityofthedecision of the Court.15 (Emphases supplied.)ItisPFIZERscontentioninitsMemorandum16thattherewasnounjustifiedrefusalon[itspart]toreinstate[respondent] Velasco during the pendency of the appeal,17thus,thepronouncementinRoquerocannotbemadetogovern this case. During the pendency of the case with theCourtofAppealsandpriortoitsNovember23,2005Decision,PFIZERclaimedthatithadalreadyrequiredrespondenttoreportforworkonJuly1,2005.However,accordingtoPFIZER,itwasrespondentwhorefusedtoreturn to work when she wrote_______________13Id., at p. 403.14449 Phil. 437 401 SCRA 424 (2003).15Id., at p. 446 p. 430.16Rollo, pp. 394415.17Id., at p. 405.143VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 143Pfizer, Inc. vs. Velasco7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 9/22PFIZER,throughcounsel,thatshewasoptingtoreceiveherseparationpayandtoavailofPFIZERsearlyretirement program.In PFIZERs view, it should no longer be required to paywagesconsideringthat(1)ithadalreadypreviouslypaidan enormous sum to respondent under the writ of executionissuedbytheLaborArbiter(2)itwasallegedlyreadytoreinstaterespondentasofJuly1,2005butitwasrespondent who unjustifiably refused to report for work (3)it would purportedly be tantamount to allowing respondenttochoosepayrollreinstatementwhenbylawitwastheemployer which had the right to choose between actual andpayrollreinstatement(4)respondentshouldbedeemedtohaveresignedandthereforenotentitledtoadditionalbackwages or separation pay and (5) this Court should notmechanicallyapplyRoquerobutrathershouldfollowthedoctrineinGenuinov.NationalLaborRelationsCommission18 whichwassupposedlymoreinaccordwiththe dictates of fairness and justice.19We do not agree.At the outset, we note that PFIZERs previous paymentto respondent of the amount of P1,963,855.00 (representingher wages from December 5, 2003, or the date of the LaborArbiterdecision,untilMay5,2005)thatwassuccessfullygarnishedundertheLaborArbitersWritofExecutiondatedMay26,2005cannotbeconsideredinitsfavor.NotonlywasthissumlegallyduetorespondentunderprevailingjurisprudencebutalsothiscircumstancehighlightedPFIZERsunreasonabledelayincomplyingwiththereinstatementorderoftheLaborArbiter.Aperusaloftherecords,includingPFIZERsownsubmissions, confirmed that it only required respondent toreport for work on July 1, 2005, as shown by its Letter20_______________18 G.R.Nos.14273233and14275354,December4,2007,539SCRA342.19Rollo, p. 411.20Id., at p. 304.144144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. Velasco7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 10/22datedJune27,2005,whichisalmosttwoyearsfromthetimetheorderofreinstatementwashandeddownintheLabor Arbiters Decision dated December 5, 2003.Asfarbackas1997intheseminalcaseofPioneerTexturizingCorporationv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,21theCourtheldthatanawardororderofreinstatementisimmediatelyselfexecutorywithouttheneedfortheissuanceofawritofexecutioninaccordancewith the third paragraph of Article 22322 of the Labor Code.Inthatcase,wediscussedinlengththerationaleforthatdoctrine, to wit:The provision of Article 223 is clear that an award [by the LaborArbiter]forreinstatementshallbeimmediatelyexecutoryevenpendingappealandthepostingofabondbytheemployershallnotstaytheexecutionforreinstatement.Thelegislativeintentisquiteobvious,i.e.,tomakeanawardofreinstatementimmediatelyenforceable,evenpendingappeal.TorequiretheapplicationforandissuanceofawritofexecutionasprerequisitesfortheexecutionofareinstatementawardwouldcertainlybetrayandruncountertotheveryobjectandintentofArticle223,i.e.,theimmediateexecutionofareinstatementorder.Thereasonissimple.Anapplicationforawritofexecutionanditsissuancecouldbedelayedfornumerousreasons.Amerecontinuanceorpostponementofascheduledhearing,forinstance,oraninactiononthepartoftheLaborArbiterortheNLRCcouldeasilydelaytheissuanceofthewrittherebysettingatnaughtthestrictmandateandnoblepurposeenvisionedbyArticle223.Inotherwords,iftherequirementsofArticle 224 [including the issuance of a writ of execution] were togovern, as we so declared in Maranaw, then the executory natureof_______________21345 Phil. 1057 280 SCRA 806 (1997).22 Inanyevent,thedecisionoftheLaborArbiterreinstatingadismissedorseparatedemployee,insofarasthereinstatementaspectisconcerned,shallimmediatelybeexecutory,evenpendingappeal.Theemployeeshalleitherbeadmitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to hisdismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in thepayroll.Thepostingofabondbytheemployershallnotstaytheexecutionforreinstatement provided herein.1457/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 11/22VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 145Pfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoareinstatementorderorawardcontemplatedbyArticle223willbe unduly circumscribed and rendered ineffectual. In enacting thelaw,thelegislatureispresumedtohaveordainedavalidandsensiblelaw,onewhichoperatesnofurtherthanmaybenecessarytoachieveitsspecificpurpose.Statutes,asarule,areto be construed in the light of the purpose to be achieved and theevil sought to be prevented. x x x In introducing a new rule on thereinstatementaspectofalabordecisionunderRepublicActNo.6715,Congressshouldnotbeconsideredtobeindulginginmeresemanticexercise.xxx23(Italicsintheoriginalemphasisandunderscoring supplied.)Inthecaseatbar,PFIZERdidnotimmediatelyadmitrespondentbacktoworkwhich,accordingtothelaw,shouldhavebeendoneassoonasanorderorawardofreinstatementishandeddownbytheLaborArbiterwithout need for the issuance of a writ of execution. Thus,respondent was entitled to the wages paid to her under theaforementionedwritofexecution.Atmost,PFIZERspaymentofthesamecanonlybedeemedpartialcompliance/executionoftheCourtofAppealsResolutiondated October 23, 2006 and would not bar respondent frombeingpaidherwagesfromMay6,2005toNovember23,2005.ItwouldalsoseemthatPFIZERwaitedfortheresolution of its appeal to the NLRC and, only after it wasorderedbytheLaborArbitertopaytheamountofP1,963,855.00representingrespondentsfullbackwagesfromDecember5,2003uptoMay5,2005,didPFIZERdecide to require respondent to report back to work via theLetter dated June 27, 2005.PFIZERmakesmuchofrespondentsnoncompliancewithitsreturntoworkdirectivebydownplayingthereasonsforwardedbyrespondentaslessthansufficienttojustify her purported refusal to be reinstated. In PFIZERsview,thereturntoworkorderitsenttorespondentwasadequatetosatisfythejurisprudentialrequisitesconcerningthereinstatementofanillegallydismissedemployee._______________7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 12/2223 PioneerTexturizingCorporationv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission, supra note 21 at pp. 10751076 pp. 825826.146146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoItwouldbeusefultoreproduceherethetextofPFIZERs Letter dated June 27, 2005:Dear Ms. Velasco:Pleasebeinformedthat,pursuanttotheresolutionsdated20October2004and14December2004renderedbytheNationalLaborRelationsCommissionandtheorderdated24May2005issued by Executive Labor Arbiter Vito C. Bose, you are requiredtoreportforworkon1July2005,at9:00a.m.,atPfizersmainofficeatthe23rdFloor,AyalaLifeFGUCenter,6811AyalaAvenue, Makati City, Metro Manila.Pleasereporttotheundersignedforabriefingonyourworkassignments and other responsibilities, including the appropriaterelocation benefits.For your information and compliance.Very truly yours,(Sgd.)Ma. Eden Grace SagisiLabor and Employee Relations Manager24Toreiterate,underArticle223oftheLaborCode,anemployeeentitledtoreinstatementshalleitherbeadmittedbacktoworkunderthesametermsandconditionsprevailingpriortohisdismissalorseparationor,attheoptionoftheemployer,merelyreinstatedinthepayroll.Itisestablishedinjurisprudencethatreinstatementmeansrestorationtoastateorconditionfromwhichonehadbeenremovedorseparated.Thepersonreinstatedassumes the position he had occupied prior to his dismissal.Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position fromwhich one had been removed still exists, or that there is anunfilledpositionwhichissubstantiallyequivalentorofsimilarnatureastheonepreviouslyoccupiedbytheemployee.25_______________7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 13/2224Rollo, p. 304.25Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 143219, November 28,2006, 508 SCRA 346, 352.147VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 147Pfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoApplying the foregoing principle to the case before us, itcannot be said that with PFIZERs June 27, 2005 Letter, inbelatedfulfillmentoftheLaborArbitersreinstatementorder,ithadshownaclearintenttoreinstaterespondentto her former position under the same terms and conditionsnortoasubstantiallyequivalentposition.Tobeginwith,the returntowork order PFIZER sent respondent is silentwithregardtothepositionortheexactnatureofemploymentthatitwantedrespondenttotakeupasofJuly1,2005.Evenifweassumethatthejobawaitingrespondentinthenewlocationisofthesamedesignationandpaycategoryaswhatshehadbefore,itisplainfromthetextofPFIZERsJune27,2005letterthatsuchreinstatementwasnotunderthesametermsandconditionsasherpreviousemployment,consideringthatPFIZERorderedrespondenttoreporttoitsmainofficeinMakatiCitywhileknowingfullywellthatrespondentsprevious job had her stationed in Baguio City (respondentsplace of residence) and it was still necessary for respondenttobebriefedregardingherworkassignmentsandresponsibilities, including her relocation benefits.TheCourtiscognizantoftheprerogativeofmanagementtotransferanemployeefromoneofficetoanotherwithinthebusinessestablishment,providedthatthereisnodemotioninrankordiminutionofhissalary,benefitsandotherprivilegesandtheactionisnotmotivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effectedasaformofpunishmentordemotionwithoutsufficientcause.26 Likewise, the management prerogative to transferpersonnelmustbeexercisedwithoutgraveabuseofdiscretion and putting to mind the basic elements of justiceandfairplay.Theremustbenoshowingthatitisunnecessary,inconvenientandprejudicialtothedisplacedemployee.277/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 14/22_______________26 NorkisTradingCo.,Inc.v.Gnilo,G.R.No.159730,February11,2008, 544 SCRA 279, 289.27 Urbanes,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.138379,November25,2004, 444 SCRA 84, 95.148148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoTheJune27,2005returntoworkdirectiveimplyingthatrespondentwasbeingrelocatedtoPFIZERsMakatimainofficewouldnecessarilycausehardshiptorespondent,amarriedwomanwithafamilytosupportresidinginBaguioCity.However,PFIZER,astheemployer,offerednoreasonorjustificationfortherelocationsuchasthefillingupofrespondentsformerpositionandtheunavailabilityofsubstantiallyequivalentpositioninBaguioCity.Atransferofworkassignmentwithout any justification therefor, even if respondent wouldbepresumablydoingthesamejobwiththesamepay,cannotbedeemedfaithfulcompliancewiththereinstatement order. In other words, in this instance, therewasnoreal,bonafidereinstatementtospeakofpriortothe reversal by the Court of Appeals of the finding of illegaldismissal.In view of PFIZERs failure to effect respondents actualor payroll reinstatement, it is indubitable that the Roquerorulingisapplicabletothecaseatbar.Thecircumstancethatrespondentoptedforseparationpayinlieuofreinstatement as manifested in her counsels Letter28 datedJuly 18, 2005 is of no moment. We do not see respondentsletter as taking away the option from management to effectactualorpayrollreinstatementbut,ratherunderthefactualmilieuofthiscase,wheretheemployerfailedtocategoricallyreinstatetheemployeetoherformerorequivalent position under the same terms, respondent wasnot obliged to comply with PFIZERs ambivalent returntoworkorder.ToupholdPFIZERsviewthatitwasrespondentwhounjustifiablyrefusedtoworkwhenPFIZERdidnotreinstatehertoherformerposition,andworse,requiredhertoreportforworkunderconditionsprejudicial to her, is to open the doors to potential employer7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 15/22abuse.Foreseeably,anemployermaycircumventtheimmediatelyenforceablereinstatementorderoftheLaborArbiterbycraftingreturntoworkdirectivesthatareambiguousormeanttoberejectedbytheemployeeandthendisclaimliabilityforbackwagesduetononreinstatement by capitalizing on_______________28Rollo, pp. 305306.149VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 149Pfizer, Inc. vs. Velascotheemployeespurportedrefusaltowork.Insum,theoptionoftheemployertoeffectactualorpayrollreinstatement must be exercised in good faith.Moreover,whiletheCourthasupheldtheemployersright to choose between actually reinstating an employee ormerelyreinstatinghiminthepayroll,wehavealsointhepastrecognizedthatreinstatementmightnolongerbepossibleundercertaincircumstances.InF.F.MarineCorporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,29wehad the occasion to state:It is wellsettled that when a person is illegally dismissed, heisentitledtoreinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandother privileges and to his full backwages. In the event, however,thatreinstatementisnolongerfeasible,oriftheemployeedecidesnotbereinstated,theemployershallpayhimseparationpayinlieuofreinstatement.Sucharuleislikewiseobserved in the case of a strained employeremployee relationshiporwhentheworkorpositionformerlyheldbythedismissedemployeenolongerexists.Insum,anillegallydismissedemployeeisentitledto:(1)eitherreinstatementifviableorseparationpayifreinstatementisnolongerviable,and(2)backwages.30 (Emphasis supplied.)Similarly,wehavepreviouslyheldthatanemployeesdemandforseparationpaymaybeindicativeofstrainedrelations that may justify payment of separation pay in lieuofreinstatement.31Thisisnottosay,however,thatrespondentisentitledtoseparationpayinadditionto7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 16/22backwages.Westressherethatafindingofstrainedrelationsmustnonethelessstillbesupportedbysubstantial evidence.32Inthecaseatbar,respondentsdecisiontoclaimseparationpayoverreinstatementhadnolegaleffect,notonly be_______________29495 Phil. 140 455 SCRA 154 (2005).30Id., at p. 159 pp. 172173.31 F.R.F.Enterprises,Inc.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,313 Phil. 493, 502 243 SCRA 593, 597 (1995).32 GoldenAceBuildersv.Talde,G.R.No.187200,May5,2010,620SCRA 283.150150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. Velascocause there was no genuine compliance by the employer tothereinstatementorderbutalsobecausetheemployerchosenottoactonsaidclaim.IfitwasPFIZERspositionthat respondents act amounted to a resignation it shouldhaveinformedrespondentthatitwasacceptingherresignation and that in view thereof she was not entitled toseparationpay.PFIZERdidnotrespondtorespondentsdemandatall.Asitwas,PFIZERsfailuretoeffectreinstatementandacceptrespondentsoffertoterminateheremploymentrelationshipwiththecompanymeantthat,priortotheCourtofAppealsreversalintheNovember23,2005Decision,PFIZERsliabilityforbackwagescontinuedtoaccruefortheperiodnotcoveredbythewritofexecutiondatedMay24,2005untilNovember 23, 2005.Lastly,PFIZERexhortstheCourttoreexaminetheapplicationofRoquerowithaviewthatamechanicalapplicationofthesamewouldcauseinjusticesince,inthepresent case, respondent was able to gain pecuniary benefitnotwithstanding the circumstance of reversal by the CourtofAppealsoftherulingsoftheLaborArbiterandtheNLRCtherebyallowingrespondenttoprofitfromthedishonestyshecommittedagainstPFIZERwhichwasthebasisforhertermination.Initsstead,PFIZERproposes7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 17/22thattheCourtapplytherulinginGenuinov.NationalLabor Relations Commission33 which it believes to be moreinaccordwiththedictatesoffairnessandjustice.Inthatcase, we canceled the award of salaries from the date of thedecisionoftheLaborArbiterawardingreinstatementinlight of our subsequent ruling finding that the dismissal isfor a legal and valid ground, to wit:AnentthedirectiveoftheNLRCinitsSeptember3,1994 Decision ordering Citibank to pay the salaries due tothecomplainantfromthedateitreinstatedcomplainantinthepayroll(computedatP60,000.00amonth,asfoundbytheLaborArbiter)uptoanduntilthedateofthisdecision, the_______________33Supra note 18.151VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 151Pfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoCourt hereby cancels said award in view of its finding thatthe dismissal of Genuino is for a legal and valid ground.Ordinarily, the employer is required to reinstate the employeeduringthependencyoftheappealpursuanttoArt.223,paragraph 3 of the Labor Code, which states:x x x xIfthedecisionofthelaborarbiterislaterreversedonappealuponthefindingthatthegroundfordismissalisvalid,thentheemployerhastherighttorequirethedismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to refund thesalariess/hereceivedwhilethecasewaspendingappeal,oritcanbedeductedfromtheaccruedbenefitsthatthedismissedemployeewasentitledtoreceivefromhis/heremployerunderexistinglaws,collectivebargainingagreementprovisions,andcompanypractices.However,iftheemployeewasreinstatedtoworkduringthependencyoftheappeal,thentheemployeeisentitledtothecompensationreceived for actual services rendered without need of refund.Considering that Genuino was not reinstated to work or placedonpayrollreinstatement,andherdismissalisbasedonajustcause,thensheisnotentitledtobepaidthesalariesstatedinitem no. 3 of the fallo of the September 3, 1994 NLRC Decision.347/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 18/22(Emphases supplied.)Thus, PFIZER implores the Court to annul the award ofbackwagesandseparationpayaswellastorequirerespondenttorefundtheamountthatshewasabletocollect by way of garnishment from PFIZER as her accruedsalaries.The contention cannot be given merit since this questionhas been settled by the Court en banc.IntherecentmilestonecaseofGarciav.PhilippineAirlines, Inc.,35 the Court wrote finis to the stray posture inGenuinorequiringthedismissedemployeeplacedonpayroll reinstatement to refund the salaries in case a finaldecision upholds the validity of the dismissal. In Garcia, weclarified_______________34Id., at pp. 363364.35G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 479.152152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. Velascotheprincipleofreinstatementpendingappealduetotheemergence of differing rulings on the issue, to wit:Onthisscore,theCourtsattentionisdrawntoseeminglydivergentdecisionsconcerningreinstatementpendingappealor,particularly, the option of payroll reinstatement. On the one handisthejurisprudentialtrendasexpoundedinalineofcasesincluding AirPhilippinesCorp.v.Zamora,whileontheotheristherecentcaseofGenuinov.NationalLaborRelationsCommission.Atthecoreoftheseemingdivergenceistheapplication of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code x x x.x x x xThe view as maintained in a number of cases is that:xxx[E]veniftheorderofreinstatementoftheLaborArbiterisreversedonappeal,itisobligatoryonthepartoftheemployertoreinstateandpay thewages of the dismissed employee during the period ofappeal until reversal by the higher court. On the otherhand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 19/22periodandsuchreinstatementorderisreversedwithfinality, the employee is not required to reimburse whateversalaryhereceivedforheisentitledtosuch,moresoifheactuallyrenderedservicesduringtheperiod. (Emphasisinthe original italics and underscoring supplied)In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was favorablydecided by the Labor Arbiter is entitled to receive wages pendingappealuponreinstatement,whichisimmediatelyexecutory.Unlessthereisarestrainingorder,itisministerialupontheLaborArbitertoimplementtheorderofreinstatementanditismandatory on the employer to comply therewith.The opposite view is articulated in Genuino which states:Ifthedecisionofthelaborarbiterislaterreversedonappealuponthefindingthatthegroundfordismissalisvalid,thentheemployerhastherighttorequirethedismissedemployeeonpayrollreinstatementtorefundthesalaries[he]receivedwhilethecasewaspendingappeal,oritcanbedeductedfromtheaccruedbenefits that the dismissed employee was entitled to receivefrom[his]employerunderexistinglaws,collectivebargaining agreement provisions, and com153VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 153Pfizer, Inc. vs. Velascopanypractices.However,iftheemployeewasreinstated towork during the pendency of the appeal, then the employeeisentitledtothecompensationreceivedforactualservicesrendered without need of refund.Considering that Genuino was notreinstatedtoworkorplaced on payroll reinstatement, and her dismissal is basedonajustcause,thensheisnotentitledtobepaidthesalaries stated in item no. 3 of the fallo of the September 3,1994NLRCDecision.(Emphasis,italicsandunderscoringsupplied)It hasthusbeenadvancedthatthereisnopointinreleasingthewagestopetitionerssincetheirdismissalwasfoundtobevalid, and to do so would constitute unjust enrichment.PriortoGenuino,therehadbeennoknownsimilarcasecontaining a dispositive portion where the employee was requiredtorefundthesalariesreceivedonpayrollreinstatement.Infact,in a catena of cases, the Court did not order the refund of salariesgarnishedorreceivedbypayrollreinstatedemployeesdespitea7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 20/22subsequent reversal of the reinstatement order.ThedearthofauthoritysupportingGenuinoisnotdifficulttofathomforitwouldotherwiserenderinutiletherationaleofreinstatement pending appeal.x x x xx x x Then, by and pursuant to the same power (police power),theStatemayauthorizeanimmediateimplementation,pendingappeal,ofadecisionreinstatingadismissedorseparatedemployeesincethatsavingactisdesignedtostop,althoughtemporarilysincetheappealmaybedecidedinfavoroftheappellant,acontinuingthreatordangertothesurvivaloreventhe life of the dismissed or separated employee and his family.36Furthermore,inGarcia,theCourtwentontodiscusstheillogicalandunjusteffectsoftherefunddoctrineerroneously espoused in Genuino:Evenoutsidethetheoreticaltrappingsofthediscussionandintothemundanerealitiesofhumanexperience,therefunddoctrineeasilydemonstrateshowafavorabledecisionbytheLabor_______________36Id., at pp. 488491.154154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoArbitercouldharm,morethanhelp,adismissedemployee.Theemployee, to make both ends meet, would necessarily have to useup the salaries received during the pendency of the appeal, only toenduphavingtorefundthesumincaseofafinalunfavorabledecision. It is mirage of a stopgap leading the employee to a riskycliff of insolvency.Advisably,thesumisbetterleftunspent.Itbecomesmorelogicalandpracticalfortheemployeetorefusepayrollreinstatementandsimplyfindworkelsewhereintheinterim,ifanyisavailable.Notably,theoptionofpayrollreinstatementbelongs to the employer, even if the employee is able and raring toreturntowork.PriortoGenuino,itisunthinkableforonetorefuse payroll reinstatement. In the face of the grim possibilities,the rise of concerned employees declining payroll reinstatement ison the horizon.7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 21/22Further,theGenuinorulingnotonlydisregardsthesocialjusticeprinciplesbehindtherule,butalsoinstitutesaschemeundulyfavorabletomanagement.Undersuchscheme,thesalaries dispensed pendente lite merely serve asabondpostedininstallment by the employer. For in the event of a reversal of theLaborArbitersdecisionorderingreinstatement,theemployergets back the same amount without having to spend ordinarily forbondpremiums.Thiscircumvents,ifnotdirectlycontradicts,theproscription that the posting of a bond [even a cash bond] by theemployer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement.InplayingdownthestraypostureinGenuinorequiringthedismissedemployeeonpayrollreinstatementtorefundthesalariesincaseafinaldecisionupholdsthevalidityofthedismissal,theCourtrealignsthepropercourseoftheprevailingdoctrine on reinstatement pending appeal visvistheeffectofareversal on appeal.x x x xThe Court reaffirms the prevailing principle that even ifthe order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversedonappeal,itisobligatoryonthepartoftheemployertoreinstateandpaythewagesofthedismissedemployeeduringtheperiodofappealuntilreversalbythehighercourt.x x x.37 (Emphasis supplied.)_______________37Id., at pp. 491493.155VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 155Pfizer, Inc. vs. VelascoInsum,theCourtreiteratestheprinciplethatreinstatementpendingappealnecessitatesthatitmustbeimmediatelyselfexecutorywithoutneedforawritofexecution during the pendency of the appeal, if the law is toserve its noble purpose, and any attempt on the part of theemployertoevadeordelayitsexecutionshouldnotbeallowed.Furthermore,welikewiserestateourrulingthatanorderforreinstatemententitlesanemployeetoreceivehis accrued backwages from the moment the reinstatementorderwasissueduptothedatewhenthesamewasreversedbyahighercourtwithoutfearofrefundingwhat7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME645http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed53130127d40f54d000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ918/?username=Guest 22/22hehadreceived.Itcannotbedeniedthat,underourstatutoryandjurisprudentialframework,respondentisentitledtopaymentofherwagesfortheperiodafterDecember5,2003untiltheCourtofAppealsDecisiondatedNovember23,2005,notwithstandingthefindingthereinthatherdismissalwaslegalandforjustcause.Thus,thepaymentofsuchwagescannotbedeemedasunjust enrichment on respondents part.WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailedResolution dated October 23, 2006 as well as the Resolutiondated April 10, 2007 both issued by the Court of Appeals inCAG.R. SP No. 88987 are hereby AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.Corona(C.J.,Chairperson),Velasco,Jr.,DelCastilloand Perez, JJ., concur.Petition denied, resolutions affirmed.Note.Thenormalconsequencesofafindingthatanemployeehasbeenillegallydismissedare,firstly,thattheemployeebecomesentitledtoreinstatementtohisformerpositionwithoutlossofseniorityrightsand,secondly,thepayment of backwages corresponding to the period from hisillegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. (Nissan NorthEDSA Balintawak, Quezon City vs. Serrano, Jr., 588 SCRA238 [2009])o0oCopyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.