J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari is
GRANTED. The November 23, 2012 and April 23, 2013 Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115794, insofar as it ordered petitioner
Jose Leni Z. Solidum to refund respqndent Smart Communications, Inc. the
additional wages and benefits he received by virtue of the 10th Alias Writ of
Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. NCR-00-11-09564-
05, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SMART FAILED TO REINSTATE PETITIONER AS MANDATED BY ARBITER’S DECISION. BUT SMART PAID HIM SALARIES TOTALLING P15,889,871,04. HOWEVER NLRC REVERSED THE DECISION. SMART IS NOW ASKING THE RETURN OF THE P15,889,871.04. SUPREME COURT SAID SMART CANNOT DEMAND REIMBURSEMENT. IT FAILED TO REINSTATE PETITIONER. UNTIL THE DECISION WAS REVERSED WITH FINALITY PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SAID SALARIES.

All told, the CA misapplied the Two-Fold Test resulting in the erroneous
order for Solidum to reimburse PHP 15,889.871.04 to Smart. The appellate
court incorrectly attributed Solidum ‘s alleged delay in filing his claim for
additional salaries and benefits as a reason for its order of reimbursement in
favor of Smart. However, as explained earlier, the term “delay” in the TwoF
old Test context is directly linked to the employer who has refused to comply
with the labor arbiter’s reinstatement order before its reversal. Importantly,
any perceived delay on Solidum’s part in seeking the computation and
payment of his accumulated wages and benefits is considered inconsequential
due to the immediate and self-executory nature of the labor arbiter’s decision.

Given the facts and circumstances, the delay in this case can be traced
back to the unjustified actions of Smart. It is crucial to reiterate that Article
223, paragraph 3, of the Labor Code mandates the employer to promptly
reinstate the dismissed employee, either by actual reinstatement under the
conditions prevailing before the dismissal, or through his or her inclusion in
the payroll. Smart’s failure to exercise either option in a timely manner makes
it accountable for Solidum’s accrued salaries and benefits until the arbiter’s
decision was overturned by the NLRC. Notably, since the NLRC’s May 29,
2009 Decision attained finality on August 10, 2009, Solidum is entitled to the
PHP 15,889,871.04 claimed under the 10th Alias Writ, representing his
accrued earnings from before August l 0, 2009, covering the period from July
13, 2006, to January 26, 2009.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petitions for Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No.
232968 and G.R. No. 232974, are DISMISSED on the ground of mootness.

On the other hand, the Petition for Certiorari filed by Arthur Cua Yap
in G.R. Nos. 238584-87 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated
November 28, 2017 and March 1, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan (SBN) in SB-
17-CRM-1510-1545 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Yap’s Motion for
Partial Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 15 August 201 7) with Motion
to Quash Informations is GRANTED and the cases against him before the
Sandiganbayan, docketed as SB-l 7-CRM-1526, SB-17-CRM-1527, SB-l 7-
CRM-1531, and SB-l 7-CRM-1544, are hereby DISMISSED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

Corollary thereto, it is doctrinal that the burden of proof to justify the
delay shifts depending on when the right was invoked. The defense bears the
burden if the right was invoked within the periods prescribed by this Comi,
the Rules of Court, or the 0MB for the conduct of preliminary investigation;
the prosecution bears the burden if the right was invoked beyond the set
periods, and it must show that the delay was justifiable under the factors
provided in Cagang.66 In other words, if the O1\1B exceeded the prescribed
period, the burden of proof shifts to the state.67 Catamco v. Sandiganbayan68
instructs that once the burden of proof shifts to prosecution, the prosecution
must prove that: 1) it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of
preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case, 2) the complexity
of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable, and 3) no
prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.69

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.