Thursday, November 29, 2007 BPI stands by its decision to dismiss 2 employees By Gil Alfredo B. Severino
DESPITE the writ of execution issued by the National Labor Regulation Commission (NLRC) labor arbiter, the Bank of the Philippine Island (BPI) management stands by its decision to dismiss employees Amelia Enriquez and Remo Sia.
In a press statement issued by BPI-Bacolod main branch, it said that BPI would stand by its decision dismissing Enriquez and Sia despite being ordered to pay the two P13.5 million worth of unpaid salaries, among other benefits, since 2003.
"This matter stemmed from a case filed by former bank officers who were previously dismissed for a cause by the bank. They questioned the legality of their dismissal by initially obtaining a ruling in their favor from the labor arbiter. However, they lost their cases when it came to both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals," BPI said.
On record, labor arbiter Roderick Joseph Calanza issued a writ of execution on November 23, 2007 ordering BPI and one of its officers, Luis Puentevella, to pay both Enriquez and Sia.
Court sheriff Enrico Paredes then levied one of BPI's properties on Araneta Street, Bacolod with an area of 2,467 sq. m. and set it for auction this coming December 17, 2007.
Proceeds of the sale will be used to pay Enriquez and Sia.
The NLRC even issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) last November 26, 2007 to stop the execution proceedings and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court.
The BPI statement, however, did not specify the exact nature of the case of the two bank officers that caused their termination four years ago.
The March 29, 2004 decision of labor Danilo Acosta ordered both Enriquez and Sia reinstated to their former positions without the loss of seniority rights and other privileges.
Starting from then, Enriquez and Sia were considered bank employees who had a right to their salaries and other remunerations even if the bank insisted on not reinstating them.
The rights were stopped, however, when the NLRC 4th Division in Cebu City reversed the labor arbiter's decision and denied the complainants' motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2005.
Enriquez and Sia submitted a motion for partial execution on August 14, 2007 at the NLRC 4th Division demanding appropriate remuneration.
Complainants' legal counsel then invoked the case of Roquero versus Philippine Airlines stating "even if the labor arbiter's decision is reversed, employers have the obligation to pay the remunerations of the dismissed employees during the entire period of the appeal until the reversal of the Higher Court."
On November 13, 2007, the labor arbiter granted the motion and held a pre execution conference held at NLRC-Bacolod for re-computation by the fiscal examiner of the complainants' accrued remunerations.
Calanza upheld the decision and found no necessity to further delay the partial execution for complainants to collect accrued salaries, allowances, and benefits due them.
Based on NLRC's decision and computation, Enriquez is entitled to receive P9,741,502 of unpaid salaries and other benefits, among other bonuses. Sia will only be entitled to P3,795,620.25.
