Labor Law Review |Sobrevinas | August December 2014|Page

Torillo v. Leogardo
May 27, 1991
Ponente: Fernan, J.
Naomi Q.
SUMMARY: Petitioner was illegally dismissed by rivate
resondent! "#e $inistry o% Labor ordered t#e rivate
resondent to reinstate etitioner and ay bac&wages and
#oliday ay! 'ut because reinstatement was no longer ossible(
t#e $inistry o% Labor modi)ed t#e order and stated t#at
etitioner s#all instead be awarded searation ay! Petitioner
argues t#at #e is entitled to searation ay and bac&wages!
DOCTRINE: *n t#e event t#at reinstatement is no longer
ossible( searation ay is awarded to t#e emloyee! "#e
award o% searation ay is in lieu o% reinstatement and not o%
bac&wages!
FACTS:
Petitioner +alentino "orillo was emloyed as an organist by
rivate resondent Aberdeen ,ourt( *nc! in -ctober 1.//!

-n 0uly 2( 1./1( #e invited #is co2emloyees %or a nig#t out in #is
#ometown in Rosario( ,avite in celebration o% #is birt#day! Private
resondent ob3ected to suc# activity( re4uesting its emloyees to
re%rain %rom attending because t#e %ollowing day was a wor&ing
day! Petitioner us#ed t#roug# wit# #is birt#day arty!
Petitioner reorted %or wor& t#e ne5t day( 0uly 6! -n 0uly 4 #e was
dismissed %rom #is emloyment %or #aving de)ed rivate
resondent7s order!
Petitioner )led wit# t#e $-L8 Region *+( a comlaint against
rivate resondent %or illegal dismissal wit# rayer %or
reinstatement wit# bac&wages( including ayment o% #is unaid
wages %rom 0uly 1 to 0uly 6( 1./1( #oliday ay and remium ay
%rom 9ebruary to 0uly 1( 1./1!
Private resondent tried to 3usti%y etitioner7s dismissal by
claiming t#at t#e latter abandoned #is wor& in %ailing to reort %or
duty a%ter #is birt#day celebration!
Ministry o La!or t#roug# Director 8strella %ound etitioner:s
dismissal illegal and ordered rivate resondent Aberdeen ,ourt(
*nc! to;
reinstate etitioner to #is %ormer osition wit#out loss o%
seniority rig#ts and rivileges
wit# %ull bac&wages %rom date o% dismissal on 0uly 4( 1./1
until date o% actual reinstatement
and #oliday ay %or seven </= days lus #is unaid wages
%rom 0uly 1 to 6( 1./1!
Private resondent aealed to t#e $inistry o% Labor!
A%ter / years( Ministry o La!or and E"#loy"ent( t#ru
Deuty $inister Leogardo issued an order a>rming t#at o%
Director 8strella! $odi)cation; in lieu o% reinstatement( etitioner
s#ould be aid searation ay e4uivalent to etitioner7s wages
%or two <2= mont#s!
Private resondent )led $R! Denied!
Private resondent )led a motion %or leave to )le 2
nd
$R
attac#ing t#ereto t#e said 2
nd
motion!
Petitioner )led an urgent motion %or e5ecution and aointment
o% secial s#eri?( w#ic# was oosed by rivate resondent!
Ministry o La!or issued a writ o% e5ecution on $ay 16( 1.1@!
'y virtue o% said writ( ersonal roerties o% rivate resondent
were levied uon!
'e%ore t#ey were sold in a ublic auction( rivate resondent )led
a motion to 4uas# t#e writ o% e5ecution on t#e grounds t#at;
2
nd
$R #as not yet been acted uon(
1
Labor Law Review |Sobrevinas | August December 2014|Page
bac&wages s#ould not be awarded to etitioner since t#e
order stated t#at etitioner s#ould only be aid searation
ay
assuming #e is entitled to bac&wages( t#e law allows t#e
emloyer to deduct #is income earned elsew#ere during
t#e time #e was out o% wor&A and
rivate resondent s#ould be resent during t#e
comutation o% t#e monetary award!
Petitioner )led an oosition to t#is motion as well as a
sulemental motion %or e5ecution citing Section 2( Rule B+ o%
t#e *RR o% t#e Cew Labor ,ode( w#ic# states t#at t#e decision o%
t#e Secretary o% Labor s#all be immediately 2e5ecutory( ending
aeal( unless stayed by t#e order o% t#e President o% t#e
P#iliines!
Ministry o La!or at )rst issued a restraining order en3oining
t#e assigned s#eri? %rom roceeding wit# t#e auction sale!
Dowever( on 0uly 26( 1.1@( #e recalled t#e restraining order
issued and directed t#e s#eri? to roceed wit# t#e e5ecution!
Private resondent aealed to t#e ->ce o% t#e $inister o%
Labor!
De#$ty Minister Leogardo set aside t#e order dated 0uly 26(
1.1@( stating t#erein t#at t#e 9ebruary 16( 1.1@ -rder stands(
wit# t#e clari)cation t#at t#e a>rmative relie% granted to
comlainant does not include t#e ayment o% bac&wages! *n
addition( t#e writ o% e5ecution to en%orce ayment o% bac&wages
in t#e amount o% P210(/1E!00 was 4uas#ed!
Petitioner )led a $R o% said order! Denied! Dence( t#is recourse!
ISSUES%&ELD: F-C it is roer to award bac&wages ACD
searation ay to an illegally dismissed emloyee w#ose
reinstatement is no longer %easible G8S
RATIO:
"#e clari)catory order is erroneous in so %ar as it declared t#at
t#e a>rmative relie% o% bac&wages is available only w#ere
reinstatement is
ordered!
An illegally dis"issed e"#loyee "ay !e a'arded !ot(
!a)*'ages and se#aration #ay!
Art! 210 <now Art! 2/.= o% t#e Labor ,ode rovides t#at Han
emloyee w#o is un3ustly dismissed %rom wor& s#all be entitled to
reinstatement wit#out loss o% seniority rig#ts and ot#er rivileges
and to #is %ull bac&wagesI
+a)*'ages are granted on grounds o% e4uity %or earnings w#ic#
a wor&er or emloyee #as lost due to #is illegal dismissal!
Reinstate"ent( on t#e ot#er #and( means restoration to a state
o% condition %rom w#ic# one #ad been removed or searated!
'ac&wages and reinstatement are two relie%s given to an illegally
dismissed emloyee!
In t(e event t(at reinstate"ent is no longer #ossi!le,
se#aration #ay is a'arded to t(e e"#loyee. "#e award o%
searation ay is in lieu o% reinstatement and not o% bac&wages!
Santos vs. NLRC: "#ese twin remedies2reinstatement and
ayment o% bac&wages J ma&e t#e dismissed emloyee w#ole
w#o can t#en loo& %orward to continued emloyment! "#us do
t#ese two remedies give meaning and substance to t#e
constitutional rig#t o% labor to security o% tenure! "#e two %orms
o% relie% are distinct and searate( one %rom t#e ot#er!
Se#aration #ay is t#e amount t#at an emloyee receives at t#e
time o% #is severance %rom t#e service and is designed to rovide
t#e emloyee wit# Ht#e w#erewit#al during t#e eriod t#at #e is
loo&ing %or anot#er emloyment!H
-ay"ent o !a)*'ages is a %orm o% relie% t#at restores t#e
income t#at was lost by reason o% unlaw%ul dismissalA se#aration
#ay, in contrast( is oriented towards t#e immediate %uture( t#e
2
Labor Law Review |Sobrevinas | August December 2014|Page
transitional eriod t#e dismissed emloyee must undergo be%ore
locating a relacement 3ob!
-etitioner is entitled to !ot( se#aration #ay and
!a)*'ages.
Dowever( t#e amount o% bac&wages s#all be based on t#e
Mercury Drug Rule w#ic# limits bac&wages o% illegally
dismissed emloyees to an amount e4uivalent to t#eir wages %or
t#ree <6= years( wit#out 4uali)cation and deduction!
"#e ,ourt #as adoted t#e ractice o% )5ing t#e amount o%
bac&wages at a reasonable level wit#out 4uali)cation and
deduction so as to relieve t#e emloyees %rom roving t#eir
earnings during t#eir layo?s and t#e emloyer %rom submitting
counter roo%s and t#us obviate t#e twin evils o% idleness on t#e
art o% t#e emloyees and attrition and undue delay in satis%ying
t#e award on t#e art o% t#e emloyer! "#is ractice #as been
#ailed as a realistic( reasonable and mutually bene)cial solution!
-etitioner s(all !e a'arded se#aration #ay in lie$ o
reinstate"ent.
De s#all receive t#e amount e4uivalent to 1 mont# salary %or
every year o% service( including t#e t#ree2year eriod in w#ic#
bac&wages are awarded!
asis: !ro"ier #nternationa"( #nc! vs! $mansec( w#erein we #eld
t#at in t#e comutation o% searation ay( t#e t#ree <6= year
eriod in resect o% w#ic# bac&wages are awarded( must be
included <alt#oug# rivate resondent #ad not actually served
during t#e last t#ree <6= years=
$oreover( #is actual service wit# rivate resondent %or
aro5imately nine <.= mont#s( counted %rom -ctober 1.// to
0uly 1./1 s#all be considered as one <1= year( in accordance wit#
Article 216 o% t#e Labor ,ode( w#ic# rovides t#at a %raction o% at
least si5 <@= mont#s is considered one <1= w#ole year!
Dis#ositive: Petition granted! Private resondent is #ereby
ordered to ay etitioner t#e amount o% P14@(2EE!6/
reresenting #is bac&wages( searation ay( #oliday ay and
unaid wages by reason o% #is illegal dismissal!
6