.

,,
. ~o
"

l\epublic of tbe ~bilippine~

SUPREME CGURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
<!Court

m~ ~.w~.-=~~
~upreme
;ffianila
,\ If MAR.,~ ~ ~~~. ~ I
FIRST DIVISION ~~~ v c!.J
EW: _ Jr/la
TiME:_____ ._::t..z.Q_________--
_

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution

dated March 9, 2015 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 214280 (Francis Dexter A. De Guzman, Pf!titioner v.

Wyeth Philippines, respondent.). - Assailed in this Petition for Review on
Certiorari are the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 6 January
2014 1 and 17 September 20142 in CA-G.R. SP No. 119541 partially
granting the motion for reconsideration of respondent Wyeth Philippines,
Inc. (Wyeth) in: (1) not ordering the reinstatement to work of petitioner
Francis Dexter de Guzman (De Guzman); and in lieu thereof, (2) ordering
the payment of separation pay in the amount of Jl440,895.00, plus 12%
interest computed from 27 November 2008 until 30 June 2013, and 6%
interest per year, computed from 1 July 2013 until full payment thereof.
The dispositive portions of the two Resolutions read:

This Court rules as follows:

1.) PARTIALLY GRANTS [Wyeth's] Motion for

Reconsideration;
2.) NOTES [De Guzman's] Opposition

The Court amends its ruling on the matter of reinstatement of [De

Guzman].

The consequences of [De Guzman's] illegal dismissal are

reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages
computed from the time compensation was withheld up to date ofactual
reinstatement.

- over - seven (7) pages ..... .

133

Rollo,in G.R No. 214280, Vol. II, pp. 1262-1263.

2
Id. at 1310-1311.
 RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

However, where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option,

separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of
;··,~····=~ :·,,. < : ., ~ , ;~~fY~St'. ~hould be awarded as an alternative .

.-:.~:.~r ;.<.·<:-;·~~~;·:~~· <.: ~~ :~~· 1t:·! __ .

.·: ,--· ... ;.... .:" ..: ··~°'.J'. 'ID this case, since reinstatement is not anymore possible as
! ; i ~. ;.;r-,r ;: r ~[WyetbJ had validly terminated [De Guzman] on the ground of
. ; ; i ·; . .., ' . redundancy, [Wyeth] must pay [De Guzman] separation pay in lieu of
<.:_'.. :..~~--~~; ·~: •. ~ :t~'insn!t~ment, and backwages .
.... ~~ -·--., ..... - . ' . "

Thus, the following computation for [De Guzman's] separation

pay is as follows:

Ten years of service (10) x P44,895.00 = P440,895.00 (sic)

(1998 to 24 November 2008 [date of illegal termination])

In addition to the monetary award of Pl,729,795.23 ordered by

the NLRC in the Decision dated 26 January 2011, and which we
affirmed in our Decision of 25 July 2013, the court orders [respondent]
Wyeth Philippines Incorporated to pay [petitioner] Francis Dexter A. de
Guzman the amount of P448,950.00, as separation pay, plus 12% interest
computed from 27 November 2008 until 30 June 2013, and subject to
6% interest per year, computed from 1 July 2013 until fully paid"3 xx x.

The Court rules as follows:

1. DENIES [petitioner] de Guzman's Motion for

Reconsideration;

2. NOTES [respondent] Wyeth's Comment;

3. NOTES [petitioner] de Guzman's Reply.

After a careful review of the allegations in the Motion, we find no

ground to reverse, modify, or'set aside the Resolution promulgated on 6
June 2014. 4

The undisputed facts as found by the appellate court in CA-GR SP

No. 119541, and ultimately affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 210769
entitled Wyeth Philippines, Inc. v. Francis Dexter A. De Guzman, 5 follow:

[De Guzman] was the warehouse shift supervisor of [Wyeth] at

its Terclay Canlubang Plant in Cabuyao, Laguna. In 2008, [De Guzman]
was ordered to transfer to the Banay-banay warehouse in Cabuyao,
Laguna. [De Guzman] refused. the transfer. [Wyeth] preventively

- over-
133

Id. at 1262-1263.
4
Id. at 1310-1311.
Id. at 1312-1314; Minute Resolution dated 19 March 2014 and 9 July 2014, respectively.
 RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

suspended [De Guzman who continued to refuse] to work at the Banay-

banay warehouse. [Wyeth] terminated [De Guzman] due to
insubordination and refusal to accept work assignment or work location.
[De Guzman] filed [a] Complaint [for illegal dismissal, illegal
suspension, unfair labor practices (discrimination, collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) violation, harassment and, illegal preventive
suspension), non-payment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium
pay for holiday and rest day, 13th month pay, and actual and moral and
exemplary damages] against [Wyeth]. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor
of [De Guzman], and stated: [Wyeth] illegally suspended and illegally
dismissed [De Guzman]; there was no basis to preventively suspend [De
Guzman] because he was already stripped of his duties, and therefore,
did not pose any serious threat to the life or property of [Wyeth] and its
officers and employees; [De Guzman] was illegally dismissed because
[he] was justified in refusing to be transferred to the Banay-banay
warehouse; the transfer was a violation of the CBA, a demotion, and
resulted in diminution of wages and benefits. The Labor Arbiter ordered
[Wyeth] to reinstate [De Guzman] and pay full backwages, withheld
benefits, wages during the time of preventive suspension, and attorney's
fees. In compliance with the Labor Arbiter's Decision, [Wyeth]
reinstated [De Guzman] as the warehouse supervisor of JY warehouse.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and
increased the monetary award.

On February 14, 2011, [Wyeth] filed [a] Motion for

Reconsideration and stated [De Guzman] could no longer be reinstated
because [De Guzman] was terminated on the ground of redundancy. In
the letter dated 27 January 2011, [Wyeth] informed [De Guzman] he was
terminated effective 28 February 2011 on the ground of redundancy and,
through no fault of [De Guzman]. [De Guzman] filed Opposition and
stated he was illegally terminated again effective 28 February 2011 on
the ground of redundancy, although there was no basis to say there was a
redundancy necessitating the dismissal of [De Guzman].

On 15 March 2011, the NLRC issued the assailed Resolution

denying the motion for reconsideration filed by [Wyeth]. 6

In its Decision7 dated 25 July 2013, the Court of Appeals dismissed

the petition for certiorari filed by Wyeth alleging grave abuse of discretion
in the disposition of the labor tribunals granting the Complaint of de
Guzman and ordering Wyeth's payment of full backwages and the
reinstatement of de Guzman to work at Wyeth.

- over-
133

6
Id. at 1228-1229; CA Decision dated 25 July 2013.

!
7
Id. at 1227-1241; Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate
Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
 RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

Subsequently, Wyeth moved for reconsideration reiterating its

previous argument before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) that de Guzman can no longer be reinstated to work since he had
been dismissed based on redundancy:

III. [DE GUZMAN'S] REINSTATEMENT IS NOT

POSSIBLE CONSIDERING THAT HIS FORMER POSITION WAS
ABOLISHED AND NO LONGER EXISTS IN LIGHT OF THE
REDUNDANCY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED BY [WYETH]
WHICH WAS DECLARED VALID UNDER THE 29 NOVEMBER
2012 DECISION IN NLRC CASE NO. RAB IV-08-01223-1 lL AND IN
TURN, AFFIRMED UNDER THE 30 APRIL 2013 AND 19 JUNE
2013 RESOLUTIONS IN NLRC LAC NO. 02-000725-13. 8

On the other litigation front concerning the second dismissal of de

Guzman, ostensibly for redundancy, de Guzman's complaint for illegal
dismissal and other monetary claims, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB
IV-08-01223-1 lL, was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter on 29 November
2012. Essentially, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal of de Guzman
pursuant to the redundancy program of Wyeth was valid and in accordance
with law. The dispositive portion of the aforesaid Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is

DISMISSED there being a valid redundancy. x x x Notwithstanding,
respondent Wyeth Philippines, Inc. shall pay [De Guzman], as follows:

(1) SEPARATION PAY Pl,722,084.20

09/07/98 to 02/28/11 @ 2.5 mo./yr. of service
(2) SALARY DIFFERENTIAL p 41,200.00
(Pl0,300.00 each for Nov., Dec. 2010; Jan. Feb 2011)
(3) 13th Month Pay p 9,199.16
(Nov. Dec 2010; Jan. Feb 2011)
(4) 14th Month Pay
(Nov,Dec.2010;Jan.Feb.2011 p 9,199.16
TOTAL p 1, 781,682.52

All other claims of [de Guzman] are likewise dismissed. 9

On appeal by de Guzman, the 3rd Division of the NLRC rendered a

Resolution dated 30 April 2013 10 docketed as NLRC LAC Case No. 02-
000725-13, affirming the Labor Arbiter's Decision with modification:

- over-
133

Id. at 1243.
9
Id at 1328-1329.
IO
Id. at 1330-1345.
 RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 29 November 2012

Decision of Labor Arbiter Remedios Tirad-Capinig is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Wyeth is further ordered to pay [De Guzman] the
following:

Unused Vacation Leaves (17 leave credits)

1!55,195.00/26 = P2,122.88 x 17 ------------------- Php36,088.96

Unused Sick Leaves (9 leave credits)

P55,195.00/26 = Pl,122.99 x 9 --------------------- Phpl 9,105.92

Christmas Package Monthly Equivalent-------- Php 5,000.00

Rice Ration Monetary Equivalent -------------- Php 7,200.00
Out-Patient Claims/Benefits
Filed 30 Nov. 2010 -------------------------- Php 1,816.00
Filed 20 Jan. 2011 --------------------------- Php 2,634.55
Filed 20 January 2011 ---------------------- Php 3,451.25
Filed 08 February 2011 --------------------- Php 1,946.50
TOTAL Php77,243.18 11

Returning to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Wyeth before

the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 119541 on the 1st case of illegal
dismissal, Wyeth invoked the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and Resolution
of the NLRC finding valid the 2nd dismissal of De Guzman based on
redundancy. Thus, the appellate court (in CA-G.R. SP No. 119541) issued
the herein assailed Resolutions dated 6 January 2014 and 17 September
2014.

As clarification, we note that the validity of the 2nd dismissal of De

Guzman based on redundancy is not yet final and executory and remains
pending before the appellate court docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 131564.

To obviate confusion, the petition herein filed by De Guzman only

questions the two Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
119541 which ordered the payment of separation pay to De Guzman in lieu
of reinstatement. Effectively, with our Minute Resolution d~ted 9 July
2014 12 in G.R. No. 2107 69., the ruling of the appellate court (in CA-G .R.
SP No. 119541) and the labor tribunals granting De Guzman's 1st
complaint for illegal dismissal, is already final.

Article 279 of the Labor Code provides the twin reliefs afforded an
illegally dismissed employee:

- over-
133

II
Id. at 1344-1345.
12
Id. at 1314.
 RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

Art. 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the

employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a
just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied)

Given the factual milieu obtaining herein, and the pendency of the
2nd dismissal of De Guzman based on redundancy before the appellate
court in CA-G.R. SP No. 131564, we affirm the finality of our ruling in
G.R. No. 210769 entitled Wyeth v. De Guzman and the consequences of the
illegal 1st dismissal of De Guzman which is his reinstatement to work
without loss of seniority rights and the payment of full backwages.

The appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 131564 has yet to resolve the
validity of the 2nd dismissal of De Guzman, albeit the labor tribunals have
held such to be valid. In fact, the impending ruling by the appellate court in
CA-G.R. SP No. 131564 may still be brought up to this Court on appeal by
the aggrieved party. We, therefore, find no basis for the declaration of the
appellate court in its 6 January 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 119541
that "reinstatement is not anymore possible as [Wyeth] had validly
terminated [De Guzman] on the ground of redundancy, the [Wyeth] must
pay [De Guzman] separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and
backwages." 13

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, without giving due

course to the present petition, we:

1. ISSUE a STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER requiring the parties

to observe the status quo of Francis Dexter A. De Guzman's reinstatement
to work at Wyeth Philippines, Inc. given the finality of our ruling in G.R.
No. 210769, in order to maintain and effect the final ruling of this Court
that the 1st dismissal of De Guzman was illegal, and so as not to render the
issues raised in this Petition moot and academic and to allow the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131564 to rule on the validity of De Guzman's
2nd dismissal; and

- over-
133

13
Id. at 1263.
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

2. Require respondent Wyeth Philippines, Inc. to COMMENT

on the petition within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

1sion Clerk of Court

133

MENDOZA ARZAGA-MENDOZA Clerk of Court (x)

LAW FIRM Court of Appeals
Counsel for Petitioner Manila)
Suite 1205, South Center Tower (CA-G.R. SP No. 119541)
Madrigal Business Park
Ayala Alabang LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA
1780 Muntinlupa City & GASTARDO LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Respondent
705 Prestige Tower
F. Ortigas, Jr. Road
Ortigas Center 1605 Pasig City

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION
PPSTA Bldg., Banawe St.
1100 Quezon City
(NLRC LAC No. 07-001496-10;
NLRC RAB-IV-11-27808-08-L)

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

SR
3/13/15
J
...
SIJPafME ::1~t 1 r.T Cir !HE t-Htt.IPIJIHE'S
~ 17:.·~e~~·,.,'.:~~~.~~ ~~!.':;:@

~~~
,}:.' ,,... . . . . . • ",:I' ~

i°". MAR ) I 2015 )

l\epublit of tbe ~bilippine~ ""r-1 ' <.iV.:JJ
~upreme ~ourt
;ffianila
TIME: ~D =·---
FIRST DIVISION

FRANCIS DEXTER A. DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 214280

Petitioner,

-versus- STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER

WYETH PHILIPPINES, INC.,

Respondent,
:x------------------------------------------------------------------:x

TO: PRESIDING JUSTICE

Court of Appeals
Manila
(CA G..R SP No. 119541)

LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA

& GASTARDO LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Respondent
705 Prestige Tower
F. Ortigas, Jr. Road
Ortigas Center 1605 Pasig City

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION
PPSTA Bldg., Banawe St.
1100 Quezon City
(NLRC LAC No. 07-001496-10;
NLRC RAB-IV-11-27808-08-L)

GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court on March 9, 2015 adopted a

resolution in the above-entitled case, to wit:

- over - (7) pages ....

133
 ..
·" · · . · S;tatus. Quo» Ante Order 2 G.R. No. 214280
.. .
,,.
.\. .... . • • ' • ' ~ I•
.........
.·.: (
'-· March 9, 2015
I;
I•
: ~- .. ; •. :f i~ ~ :

. .s~ . ."G ..R.,'No. 214280 (Francis Dexter A. De Guzman, petitioner v.

Wyeth Phil~ppines, respondent.). - Assailed in this Petition for Review on
. -Certiorari are the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 6 January 2014 1
and 17 September 2014 2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 119541 partially granting the
motion for reconsideration of respondent Wyeth Philippines, Inc. (Wyeth)
in: ( 1) not ordering the reinstatement to work of petitioner Francis Dexter de
Guzman (De Guzman); and in lieu thereof, (2) ordering the payment of
separation pay in the amount of P440,895.00, plus 12% interest computed
from 27 November 2008 until 30 June 2013, and 6% interest per year,
computed from 1 July 2013 until full payment thereof. The dispositive
portions of the two Resolutions read:

This Court rules as follows:

1.) PARTIALLY GRANTS [Wyeth's] Motion for

Reconsideration;
2.) NOTES [De Guzman's] Opposition

The Court amends its ruling on the matter of reinstatement of [De

Guzman].

The consequences of [De Guzman's] illegal dismissal are

reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages
computed from the time compensation was withheld up to date of actual
reinstatement.

However, where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option,

separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service
should be awarded as an alternative.

In this case, since reinstatement is not anymore possible as

[Wyeth] had validly terminated [De Guzman] on the ground of
redundancy, [Wyeth] must pay [De Guzman] separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement, and backwages.

Thus, the following computation for [De Guzman's] separation

pay is as follows:

Ten years of service (10) x P44,895.00 = P440,895.00 (sic)

(1998 to 24 November 2008 [date of illegal termination])

In addition to the monetary award of Pl,729,795.23 ordered by the

NLRC in the Decision dated 26 January 2011, and which we affirmed in
our Decision of 25 July 2013, the court orders [respondent] Wyeth
Philippines Incorporated to pay [petitioner] Francis Dexter A. de Guzman
the amount of P440,895.00, as separation pay, plus 12% interest computed
from 27 November 2008 until 30 June 2013, and subject to 6% interest per
year, computed from 1July2013 until fully paid"3 xx x.

The Court rules as follows:

Rollo in G.R. No. 214280, Vol. II, pp. 1262-1263.

2
Id. at 1310-131 L
Id. at 1262-1263.

- over -
..
Status Quo Ante Order 3 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

The Court rules as follows:

1. DENIES [petitioner] de Guzman's Motion for

Reconsideration;

2. NOTES [respondent] Wyeth's Comment;

3. NOTES [petitioner] de Guzman's Reply.

After a careful review of the allegations in the Motion, we find no

ground to reverse, modify, or set aside the Resolution promulgated on 6
Jurie 2014. 4

The undisputed facts as found by the appellate court in CA-GR

SP No. 119541, and ultimately affirmed by this Court in G.R. No.
210769 entitled Wyeth Philippines, Inc. v. Francis Dexter A. De
Guzman, 5 follow:
[De Guzman] was the warehouse shift supervisor of [Wyeth] at its
Terclay Canlubang Plant in Cabuyao, Laguna. In 2008, [De Guzman] was
ordered to transfer to the Banay-banay warehouse in Cabuyao, Laguna.
[De Guzman] refused the transfer. [Wyeth] preventively suspended
[De Guzman who continued to refuse] to work at the Banay-banay
warehouse. [Wyeth] terminated [De Guzman] due to insubordination and
refusal to accept work assignment or work location. [De Guzman] filed [a]
Complaint [for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, unfair labor practices
(discrimination, collective bargaining agreement (CBA) violation,
harassment and, illegal preventive suspension), non-payment of wages,
overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, 13th
month pay, and actual and moral and exemplary damages] against
[Wyeth]. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of [De Guzman], and stated:
[Wyeth] illegally suspended and illegally dismissed [De Guzman]; there
was no basis to preventively suspend [De Guzman] because he was
already stripped of his duties, and therefore, did not pose any serious
threat to the life or property of [Wyeth] and its officers and employees;
[De Guzman] was illegally dismissed because [he] was justified in
refusing to be transferred to the Banay-banay warehouse; the transfer was
a violation of the CBA, a demotion, and resulted in diminution of wages
and benefits. The Labor Arbiter ordered [Wyeth] to reinstate [De Guzman]
and pay full backwages, withheld benefits, wages during the time of
preventive suspension, and attorney's fees. In compliance with the Labor
Arbiter's Decision, [Wyeth] reinstated [De Guzman] as the warehouse
supervisor of JY warehouse. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of
the Labor Arbiter and increased the monetary award.

On February 14, 2011, [Wyeth] filed [a] Motion for

Reconsideration and stated [De Guzman] could no longer be reinstated
because [De Guzman] was terminated on the ground of redundancy. In the
letter dated 27 January 2011, [Wyeth] informed [De Guzman] he was
terminated effective 28 February 2011 on the ground of redundancy and,
through no fault of [De Guzman]. [De Guzman] filed Opposition and
stated he was illegally terminated again effective 28 February 2011 on the

4
Id. at 1310-1311.
5
Id. at 1312-1314; Minute Resolution dated 19 March 2014 and 9 July 2014, respectively.

- over-
J
 Status Quo Ante Order 4 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

ground of redundancy, although there was no basis to say there was a

redundancy necessitating the dismissal of [De Guzman].

On 15 March 2011, the NLRC issued the assailed Resolution

denying the motion for reconsideration filed by [Wyeth]. 6

In its Decision7 dated 25 July 2013, the Court of Appeals

dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Wyeth alleging grave
abuse of discretion in the disposition of the labor tribunals granting
the Complaint of de Guzman and ordering Wyeth's payment of full
backwages and the reinstatement of de Guzman to work at Wyeth.

Subsequently, Wyeth moved for reconsideration reiterating its

previous argument before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) that de Guzman can no longer be reinstated to work since he
had been dismissed based on redundancy:

III. [DE GUZMAN'S] REINSTATEMENT IS NOT

POSSIBLE CONSIDERING THAT HIS FORMER POSITION WAS
ABOLISHED AND NO LONGER EXISTS IN LIGHT OF THE
REDUNDANCY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED BY [WYETH] WHICH
WAS DECLARED VALID UNDER THE 29 NOVEMBER 2012
DECISION IN NLRC CASE NO. RAB IV-08-01223-llL AND IN
TURN, AFFIRMED UNDER THE 30 APRIL 2013 AND 19 JUNE 2013
RESOLUTIONS IN NLRC LAC NO. 02-000725-13. 8

On the other litigation front concerning the second dismissal of

de Guzman, ostensibly for redundancy, de Guzman's complaint for
illegal dismissal and other monetary claims, docketed as NLRC Case
No. RAB IV-08-01223-llL, was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter on
29 November 2012. Essentially, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the
dismissal of de Guzman pursuant to the redundancy program of
Wyeth was valid and in accordance with law. The dispositive portion
of the aforesaid Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is

DISMISSED there being a valid redundancy. x x x Notwithstanding,
respondent Wyeth Philippines, Inc. shall pay [De Guzman], as follows:

(1) SEPARATION PAY Pl,722,084.20

09/07/98 to 02/28/11 @ 2.5 mo./yr. of service
(2) SALARY DIFFERENTIAL P 41,200.00
(Pl0,300.00 each for Nov., Dec. 2010; Jan. Feb 2011)
(3) 13th Month Pay P 9,199.16
(Nov. Dec 2010; Jan. Feb 2011)
(4) 14th Month Pay
(Nov,Dec.2010;Jan.Feb.2011 p 9,199.16
TOTAL Pl,781,682.52

6
Id. at 1228-1229; CA Decision dated 25 July 2013.
7
Id. at 1227-1241; Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate
Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
Id. at 1243.
)
- over -
T <

Status Quo Ante Order 5 G.R. No. 214280

March 9, 2015

All other claims of [de Guzman] are likewise dismissed. 9

On appeal by de Guzman, the 3rd Division of the NLRC

rendered !a Resolution dated 30 April 2013 10 docketed as NLRC LAC
Case No. 02-000725-13, affirming the Labor Arbiter's Decision with
modification:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 29 November 2012

Decision of Labor Arbiter Remedios Tirad-Capinig is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Wyeth is further ordered to pay [De Guzman] the
following:

Unused Vacation Leaves (17 leave credits)

P.55,195.00/26 = P.2,122.88 x 17 ------------------- Php36,088.96

Unused Sick Leaves (9 leave credits)

P.55,195.00/26 = P.1,122.99 x 9 --------------------- Php19,105.92

Christmas Package Monthly Equivalent-------- Php 5,000.00

Ri~e Ration Monetary Equivalent --------------- Php 7,200.00
Out-Patient Claims/Benefits
Filed 30 Nov. 2010 -------------------------- Php 1,816.00
Filed 20 Jan. 2011 --------------------------- Php 2,634.55
Filed 20 January 2011 ---------------------- Php 3,451.25
Filed 08 February 2011 --------------------- Php 1,946.50
TOTAL Php77,243.18 11

Returning to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Wyeth

before the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 119541 on the 1st case
of illegal: dismissal, Wyeth invoked the Decision of the Labor Arbiter
and Resolution of the NLRC finding valid the 2nd dismissal of De
Guzman based on redundancy. Thus, the appellate court (in CA-G.R
SP No. 119541) issued the herein assailed Resolutions dated 6
January 2014 and 17 September 2014.

As clarification, we note that the validity of the 2nd dismissal of

De Guzman based on redundancy is not yet final and executory and
remains pending before the appellate court docketed as CA-G .R. SP
No. 131564.

To obviate confusion, the petition herein filed by De Guzman

only questions the two Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 119541 which ordered the payment of separation pay to
De Guzman in lieu of reinstatement. Effectively, with our Minute
Resolution dated 9 July 2014 12 in G.R. No. 210769, the ruling of the
appellate court (in CA-G.R. SP No. 119541) and the labor tribunals
9
Id at 1328-1329.
JO
Id. at 1330-1345.
11
Id. at 1344-1345.
12
Id. at 1314.

- over-
 Status Quo Ante Order 6 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

granting De Guzman's 1st complaint for illegal dismissal, is already

final.

Article 279 of the Labor Code provides the twin reliefs afforded
an illegally dismissed employee:

Art. 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the

employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just
cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied)

Given the factual milieu obtaining herein, and the pendency of

the 2nd dismissal of De Guzman based on redundancy before the
appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 131564, we affirm the finality of
our ruling in G.R. No. 210769 entitled Wyeth v. De Guzman and the
consequences of the illegal 1st dismissal of De Guzman which is his
reinstatement to work without loss of seniority rights and the payment
of full backwages.

The appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 131564 has yet to

resolve ~he validity of the 2nd dismissal of De Guzman, albeit the labor
tribunals have held such to be valid. In fact, the impending ruling by
the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 131564 may still be brought up
to this Court on appeal by the aggrieved party. We, therefore, find no
basis for the declaration of the appellate court in its 6 January 2014
Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 119541 that "reinstatement is not
anymore possible as [Wyeth] had validly terminated [De Guzman] on
the ground of redundancy, the [Wyeth] must pay [De Guzman]
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and backwages." 13

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, without giving due

course to the present petition, we:

1. ISSUE a STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER requiring the

parties to observe the status quo of Francis Dexter A. De Guzman's
reinstatement to work at Wyeth Philippines, Inc. given the finality of
our ruling in G.R. No. 210769, in order to maintain and effect the
final ruling of this Court that the 1st dismissal of De Guzman was
illegal, and so as not to render the issues raised in this Petition moot
and academic and to allow the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
131564 to rule on the validity of De Guzman's 2nd dismissal; and

13
Id. at 1263.
J
- over -
..
Status Quo Ante Order 7 G.R. No. 214280
March 9, 2015

2. Require respondent Wyeth Philippines, Inc. to

COMMENT on the petition within ten ( 10) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED."

NOW, THEREFORE, you (respondents), your officers, agents,

representatives, and/or persons acting upon your orders or, in your place or
stead, are hereby directed to maintain the STATUS QUO ANTE of Francis
Dexter A. De Guzman's reinstatement to work at Wyeth Philippines, Inc.
given the finality of the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 210769, in order to
maintain and effect the final ruling of this Court that the 1st dismissal of De
Guzman .was illegal, and so as not to render the issues raised in this Petition
moot and academic and to allow the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
131564 to rule on the validity of De Guzman's 2° dismissal.

GIVEN by the Hon. Chief Justice LOURDES P. A. SERENO,

Chairperson of the First Division, Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 9th
day of March, two thousand and fifteen.

Very truly yours,

O.ARICHETA
tvision Clerk of Court
133

Copy furnished:

MENDOZA ARZAGA-MENDOZA Clerk of Court(x)

LAW FIRM Court of Appeals
Counsel for Petitioner Manila
Suite 1205, South Center Tower (CA-G.R. SP No. 119541)
Madrigal Business Park
Ayala Alabang
1780 Muntinlupa City

- over-