Tuesday, November 27, 2007
2 axed workers win labor case vs BPI
By Erwin Ambo S. Delilan
TWO dismissed employees of the Bank of the Philippines Island (BPI) in Bacolod City won their labor case against the bank for illegal termination in 2003.
BPI, however, still has the option to appeal the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLCR) up to the Supreme Court.
Post your comments here on the Batasan blast
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in its November 23, 2007 decision that both Amelia Enriquez and Remo Sia, who were dismissed by BPI on September 23, 2003, should be given due payments in accordance with the labor law.
NLRC Labor Arbiter Roderick Joseph Calanza issued a writ of execution on Nov. 23, 2007 ordering BPI and one of its officers, Luis A. Puentevella, to pay both Enriquez and Sia a total of P13,537,122.25 representing their unpaid wages, among other benefits.
In order to collect the said amount, court sheriff Enrico Paredes levied one of BPI's properties at Araneta Street, Bacolod, which has an area of 2,467 square meters.
In a press statement, the complainants' legal counsel, lawyer Roland Ravina, said the levied property will be sold at public auction on December 17, 2007 and the proceeds applied to the bank's liabilities to his clients especially Sia whose retirement benefits for his 29 years in service were forfeited by BPI after he was dismissed on his last working day.
Ravina said this is just a small victory for his clients.
The amount that has to be paid to his clients is a partial computation because in case the Supreme Court declares that the dismissal was illegal, the amount would increase by the possible addition of retirement pay, damages, attorney's fees and back wages, he added.
Of the P13 million, Enriquez, according to NLRC Fiscal Examiner II Pag-asa de Padua, will receive a total of P9,741,502.
This will include P4,237,302 in unpaid salaries; P1,457,100 in other benefits; P728,200 performance bonus; P295,840 sick leave bonus; P443,760 vacation leave bonus; P48,000 as medical/dental allowance; P121,000 anniversary bonus; P14,500 for uniform allowance; and P2,395,800 as financial assistance (P133,400 times 50 percent).
Sia will be receiving a total of P3,795,620.25. This includes P1,657,600.50 in unpaid salaries; P179,270.85 in other benefits; P48,000 as medical/dental allowance; P47,950 anniversary bonus; P13,500 for uniform allowance; and P837,675 for financial assistance (P52,950 times 50 percent).
On March 29, 2004, Labor Arbiter Danilo Acosta rendered a decision on the case, ordering the reinstatement of the complainants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges.
As a result, they were able to collect their accrued salaries and allowances from respondents for having been reinstated in the payroll while the case was pending appeal.
But on October 7, 2004, the NLRC 4th Division in Cebu City rendered a decision reversing the labor arbiter's decision, and denying complainants' motion for reconsideration in its resolution dated March 2, 2005.
That time, BPI also stopped paying the complainants their accrued salaries effective the date of reversal.
On August 14, 2007, complainants through their legal counsel submitted a motion for partial execution of judgment of the NLRC 4th Division decision, which ordered BPI to pay the complainants financial assistance equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service as contained in its decision dated October 7, 2004.
In the motion for partial execution, complainants likewise demanded payment of their accrued salaries, allowances and other privileges, stating that this is enforceable while the case is before the Supreme Court.
The complainants' legal counsel invoked the doctrine laid down by the High Tribunal in the case of Roquero versus Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 152329 on April 22, 2003, which ruled in part: " Hence, even if the order of reinstatement of the labor arbiter is reversed on appeal by the NLRC, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee(s) during the entire period of appeal until reversal by the higher court."
On November 13, the labor arbiter granted complainants' motion and at the same time denied the respondents' opposition for lack of merit.
Nine days after, a pre-execution conference was held at NLRC-Bacolod for the parties to appear in view of the recomputation by the fiscal examiner of the accrued salaries, allowances, and other privileges due to the complainants.
Therefore, the NLRC through Calanza said that "finding no necessity to further delay the partial execution as granted, a writ of execution is in order for the collection of the accrued salaries, allowances and benefits due the complainants pursuant to Articles 223 and 279 of the Labor Code as amended, in accordance also with the Roquero case ruling."
For more Philippine news, visit Sun.Star Baguio.
(November 27, 2007 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
