Almirante: Accrued backwages
ON MARCH 7, 2008, respondents Antonio P. Magno Jr. and Melchor L. Ocampo Jr. filed against petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc., a complaint for illegal suspension and money claims which was later amended to include a prayer for reinstatement, backwages, damages, attorney’s fees and payment of their salaries corresponding to their suspension.
In a decision promulgated on Oct. 30, 2008, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Coca-Cola guilty of illegally suspending and dismissing respondents. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a decision dated Oct. 30, 2008 ruled that respondents were legally dismissed but their suspension was illegal. The Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated a decision dated March 7, 2012 which upheld the legality of respondents’ dismissal and correspondingly denied for lack of merit their claims for reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Coca-Cola contended that any entitlement of respondents to accrued wages should be limited to their basic pay only. There is no factual or legal basis of the inclusion in respondents’ accrued wages of benefits and amounts in increase of their basic pay, including the supposed cash equivalent and their vacation and sick leave benefits. It prayed for a judgment directing respondents to return to it any and all amounts that they received as part of their accrued wages in excess of their basic pay.
Does this contention find merit?
Ruling: No.
Subject to submission of proof of receipt of benefits at the time of their dismissal, Magno’s and Ocampo’s accrued backwages should include their basic salary as well as the allowances and benefits that they have been receiving at the time of their dismissal. In accordance with the claims previously put forward by Magno and Ocampo, accrued backwages may include, but are not limited to, allowances and benefits such as transportation benefits, cellphone allowance, 13th month pay, sick leave and vacation leave in the amounts at the time of their dismissal. Magno and Ocampo should also prove that they have been receiving the amounts that correspond to merit or salary increases, incentive pay and medicine at the time of their dismissal so that they may validly qualify for receipt of such as part of their accrued backwages.
In Pfizer Inc. v. Velasco, 660 Phil. 434,455 (2011), we ruled that an order for reinstatement entitles an employee to receive his accrued backwages from the moment the reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a higher court without fear of refunding what he had received. Wenphil Corp. v. Abing, 731 Phil. 685 (2014), further clarified Pfizer: The start of the computation of the backwages should be on the day following the last day when the dismissed employee was paid backwages, and end on the date that a higher court reversed the LA’s ruling of illegal dismissal. The date of reversal should be the end date, and not the date of the ultimate finality of such reversal.
Considering that the kind of monetary awards granted to Magno and Ocampo have differed throughout the course of the present case, the LA should determine the day following the last day when Magno or Ocampo received the amount for such allowance or benefit. In any event, the last day of the period of computation of Magno’s and Ocampo’s backwages should be July 27, 2010. This is the date of promulgation of the NLRC decision which ruled that Magno and Ocampo were legally dismissed. This Court’s Entry of Judgment in G.R. 202141 on Oct. 31, 2012 should not have any bearing on the determination of the last day of the period of computation. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc. vs. Antonio P. Magno, Jr., et al., G.R. 212520, July 3, 2019).