Photo from Pexels | Sora Shimazaki
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) v. NLRC (G.R. No. 115452, December 21, 1998), the Supreme Court held that an order or award for reinstatement is self-executory, meaning that it does not require a writ of execution, much less a motion for its issuance.
In the case of International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) v. NLRC (G.R. No. 115452, December 21, 1998), the Supreme Court held that an order or award for reinstatement is self-executory, meaning that it does not require a writ of execution, much less a motion for its issuance.
The Court in said case took the opportunity to clarify the provisions of Art. 224 and Art. 223 of the Labor Code as regards the order or award of reinstatement, as follows:
Art. 224 states that the need for a writ of execution applies only within five (5) years from the date a decision, an order or award becomes final and executory. It cannot relate to an award or order of reinstatement still to be appealed or pending appeal which Art. 223 contemplates.
xxx
To require the application for an issuance of a writ of execution as prerequisites for the execution of a reinstatement award would certainly betray and run counter to the very object and intent of Art. 223, i.e., the immediate execution of a reinstatement order. The reason is simple. An application for a writ of execution and its issuance could be delayed for numerous reasons. A mere continuance or postponement of a scheduled hearing, for instance, or an inaction on the part of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC could easily delay the issuance of a writ thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by Art. 223. In other words, if the requirements of Art. 224 were to govern…then the executory nature of a reinstatement order or order contemplated by Art. 223 will be unduly circumscribed and rendered ineffectual.
Therefore, the rule is that an award or order for reinstatement is self-executory. Consequently, after receipt of the decision or resolution ordering the employee’s reinstatement, the Court ruled that the employer has the right to choose whether to re-admit the employee to work under the conditions and terms which prevailed before his dismissal, or to reinstate the employee in the payroll.
RELATED ARTICLES
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.