CASE TITLE: GENUINO VS.

NLRC
GR NO.: 142732-33
DATE: December 4, 2007
PETITIONER: MARILOU S. GENUINO
RESPONDENT: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CITIBANK
FACTS:
Genuino was employed by Citibank in January 1992 as Treasury Sales Division Head
with the rank of Assistant Vice-President. On August 23, 1993, Citibank sent Genuino a letter
charging her with knowledge and involvement in transactions which were irregular or event
fraudulent. In the same letter, Genuino was informed she was under preventive suspension. On
September 27, 1993, Citibank informed Genuino of the result of their investigation. It found that
Genuino, together with Santos personally and actively participated through the use of facilities
of Genuinos family corporation, Global Pacific in the diversion of bank clients funds to
products of other companies that yielded higher interests than Citibank offers. And that Genuino
and Santos realized substantial financial gains, all in violation of existing company policy and
Corporation Code under which carries penal sanction. In view of the foregoing circumstances,
Genuinos employment was terminated by Citibank on grounds of (1) serious misconduct, (2)
willful breach of the trust reposed upon her by the bank, and (3) commission of a crime against
the bank.
Genuino filed before the LA a Complaint against Citibank for illegal suspension and
illegal dismissal with damages and prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding the dismissal of Genuino
to be without just cause and ordered to reinstate complainant immediately to her former position
as Treasury Sales Division Head or its equivalent without loss of seniority rights and other
benefits with back wages.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC which reversed the LAs decision but ordering the
respondent bank to pay the salaries due to the complainant from the date it was reinstated in the
payroll. CA affirmed the NLRC
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the salaries due from the date it was reinstated t in
the payroll up to and until the date of this decision.
HELD:
No. Ordinarily, the employer is required to reinstate the employee during the pendency of
the appeal pursuant to Art. 223, paragraph 3 of the Labor Code, which states:
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, even
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.
If the decision of the labor arbiter is later reversed on appeal upon the finding that the
ground for dismissal is valid, then the employer has the right to require the dismissed employee
on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries s/he received while the case was pending appeal,
or it can be deducted from the accrued benefits that the dismissed employee was entitled to
receive from his/her employer under existing laws, collective bargaining agreement provisions,
and company practices. However, if the employee was reinstated to work during the pendency of
the appeal, then the employee is entitled to the compensation received for actual services
rendered without need of refund.

CASE TITLE: GARCIA VS PAL

GR NO.: G.R. No. 164856

DATE: August 29, 2007
PETITIONER: JUANITO A. GARCIA and ALBERTO J. DUMAGO
RESPONDENT: PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC
FACTS:
Petitioners Alberto J. Dumago and Juanito A. Garcia were employed by respondent PAL
as Aircraft Furnishers Master "C" and Aircraft Inspector, respectively. They were assigned in the
PAL Technical Center.
A Notice of Administrative Charge was served on petitioners. They were allegedly
"caught in the act of sniffing shabu inside the Tool room Section," then placed under preventive
suspension. Petitioners vehemently denied the allegations.
Petitioners were dismissed for violation of the PAL Code of Discipline. Both
simultaneously filed a case for illegal dismissal and damages.
In the meantime, the SEC placed PAL under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver due to
severe financial losses.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in petitioners favor finding PAL guilty of illegal
suspension and illegal dismissal and ordering them to reinstate complainants to their former
position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay jointly and severally unto
the complainants backwages, 13th month pay and damages and attorneys fees.
Meanwhile, the SEC replaced the Interim Rehabilitation Receiver with a Permanent
Rehabilitation Receiver.
The Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution and a Notice of Garnishment. PAL moved
to quash the Writ of Execution and to lift the Notice of Garnishment. NLRC declared the Writ of
Execution and Notice of Garnishment valid but suspended the said proceedings and referred the
same to the Receiver of PAL for appropriate action.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners may collect their wages during the period between the Labor
Arbiters order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC decision overturning that of the
Labor Arbiter, now that PAL has exited from rehabilitation proceedings.
HELD:
NO. (an exception to the general rule)
A dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the LA is
entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately
executory. Unless there is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the LA to
implement the order of reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to comply
therewith.
The Court reaffirms the prevailing principle that even if the order of reinstatement of the
LA is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the
wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. It

settles the view that the LAs order of reinstatement is immediately executory and the employer
has to either re-admit them to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing
prior to their dismissal, or to reinstate them in the payroll, and that filing to
exercise the options in the alternative, employer must pay the employees salaries.
When reinstatement pending appeal aims to avert the continuing threat or danger to the
survival or even the life of the dismissed employee and his family, it does not contemplate the
period when the employer-corporation itself is similarly in a judicially monitored state of being
resuscitated in order to survive.