Scribd
Upload
79 views2 pages

Aris Inc V NLRC

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRC and dismissed the petition. The Court held that execution pending appeal is interlinked with the right to appeal, which is a statutory privilege and not a constitutional right. Section 12 of R.A. No. 6716 allowing execution pending appeal of reinstatement orders is therefore constitutional. Laws are presumed constitutional and the petitioner did not prove the challenged law and rule were unconstitutional.

Uploaded by

Valerie Aileen Ancero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views2 pages

Aris Inc V NLRC

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRC and dismissed the petition. The Court held that execution pending appeal is interlinked with the right to appeal, which is a statutory privilege and not a constitutional right. Section 12 of R.A. No. 6716 allowing execution pending appeal of reinstatement orders is therefore constitutional. Laws are presumed constitutional and the petitioner did not prove the challenged law and rule were unconstitutional.

Uploaded by

Valerie Aileen Ancero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Aris Inc.

vs NLRC
FACTS:

 On 11 April 1988, private respondents, who were employees of petitioner, aggrieved by


management's failure to attend to their complaints concerning their working
surroundings which had become detrimental and hazardous, requested for a grievance
conference. As none was arranged, and believing that their appeal would be fruitless,
they grouped together after the end of their work that day with other employees and
marched directly to the management's office to protest its long silence and inaction on
their complaints.
 On 12 April 1988, the management issued a memorandum to each of the private
respondents, who were identified by the petitioner's supervisors as the most active
participants in the "rally", requiring them to explain why they should not be terminated
from the service for their conduct. Despite their explanation, private respondents were
dismissed for violation of company rules and regulations, more specifically of the
provisions on security and public order and on inciting or participating in illegal strikes or
concerted actions.
 Private respondents lost no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioner and Mr. Gavino Bayan with the regional office of the NLRC at the National
Capital Region, Manila.
 After due trial the labor arbiter ordered Aris (Phils.), Inc. to reinstate Leodegario de
Guzman and company to their former respective positions or any substantial equivalent
positions if already filled up, without loss of seniority right and privileges.
 On 19 July 1989, de Guzman and company filed a Motion For Issuance of a Writ of
Execution pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 which provides that “In any event, the
decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, in so far as
the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending
appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the
employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall
not stay the execution for reinstatement provided therein."
 On 21 July 1989, petitioner filed its Appeal. On 26 July 1989, the complainants, except
Flor Rayos del Sol, filed a Partial Appeal. On 10 August 1989, complainant Flor Rayos del
Sol filed a Partial Appeal. On 29 August 1989, petitioner filed an Opposition to the
motion for execution alleging that Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 on execution pending
appeal cannot be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of its effectivity.
Petitioner submitted a Rejoinder to the Reply on 5 September 1989.
 On 5 October 1989, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order granting the motion for execution
and the issuance of a partial writ of execution "as far as reinstatement of herein
complainants is concerned in consonance with the provision of Section 2 of the rules
particularly the last sentence thereof."
 Unable to accept the above Order, petitioner filed the instant petition on October 1989.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the NLRC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
relied on the constitutionality of the amendment introduced by Section 12 of Republic Act No.
6715 to Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (PD. No. 442, as amended) and allowing
execution pending appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a labor arbiter
reinstating a dismissed or separated employee and of Section 2 of the NLRC Interim Rules on
Appeals under R.A. No. 6715 implementing the same. It also questions the validity of the
Transitory Provision (Section 17) of the said Interim Rules.
RULING:

 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRC and dismissed the petition for lack of
merit.
 SC held that execution pending appeal is interlinked with the right to appeal. One
cannot be divorced from the other. The latter may be availed of by the losing party or a
party who is not satisfied with a judgment, while the former may be applied for by the
prevailing party during the pendency of the appeal.
 The right to appeal, however, is not a constitutional, natural or inherent right. It is a
statutory privilege of statutory origin and, therefore, available only if granted or
provided by statute. The law may then validly provide limitations or qualifications
thereto or relief to the prevailing party in the event an appeal is interposed by the losing
party. Execution pending appeal is one such relief long recognized in this jurisdiction.
The Revised Rules of Court allows execution pending appeal and the grant thereof is left
to the discretion of the court upon good reasons to be stated in a special order.
 Before its amendment by Section 12 of R.A. No. 6716, Article 223 of the Labor Code
already allowed execution of decisions of the NLRC pending their appeal to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment. These provisions are the quintessence of the
aspirations of the workingman for recognition of his role in the social and economic life
of the nation, for the protection of his rights, and the promotion of his welfare.
 The charge then that the challenged law as well as the implementing rule is
unconstitutional is absolutely baseless. Laws are presumed constitutional.

You might also like