zamboanga Water District V. Buat.docx

Zamboanga Water District vs. Buat et al.GR 104389, May 27, 1994 FACTS: A strike in March 1987 participated by herein private respondents resulted in the latter’s separation from employment. Herein petition filed with the Labor Arbiter, a complaint to declare the strike illegal, this was followed by Zamboanga Utilities Labor Union (ZULU) to which herein respondents were members, a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages before the Labor Arbiter. The two cases were consolidated and heard together and on April 19, 1988 a consolidated decision by the Labor arbiter declared both the strike and the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement of private respondents to their previous positions without loss of seniority rights and privileges but without back wages. Petitioner's appeal to NLRC was rejected and decision of Labor Arbiter affirmed with the modification that strike leader Felix Laquio be suspended from work without pay for 6 mos. Three days after receipt by petitioner of NLRC decision private respondents filed a writ of execution of said decision with Executive Labor Arbiter, the same was granted. High Court initially issued TRO against the writ of execution but on 7/17/1990 affirmed the NLRC decision and lifted TRO. After receipt by petitioner of SC decision the 27 employees were reinstated and after the 6 months suspension Laquio was reinstated. On April 17, private respondents filed a motion to compel the immediate reinstatement of Laquio and payment of their back wages from 3/6/1991 up the day of actual reinstatement and to other private respondents from 3/2/1989 to 4/15/1991. Petitioner appealed the NLRC decision but same was denied. ISSUE: 1. Does NLRC have jurisdiction over the issues? 2. Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered payment of salaries of private respondents during the effectivity of the restraining order? RULING: 1. Yes, through jurisdiction by estoppel. It is well settled rule that GOCC's, of which petitioner is a water district with an original charter, are covered by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Jurisdiction over the strike and dismissal of private respondents is therefore lodged not with the NLRC but with the CSC. However, petitioner never raised the issue with the Labor Arbiter, NLRC or this court. Indeed, petitioner participated in actions with ELA and the NLRC. It is now only, when the NLRC ordered payment of back wages that petitioner raises the issue of lack of jurisdiction. It is unfair for a party who has voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of a tribunal on a matter to secure an affirmative relief and to repudiate the

same afterwards to escape a penalty. Petitioner is thus estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the NLRC. 2. No, the NLRC was correct to say that private respondents should have been reinstated on 3/21/1989 and back wages from that date to 4/15/1991 including the effectivity of the TRO. Laquio should have been reinstated on 3/6/1991 and back wages paid from said date up to actual reinstatement based on RA 6715 which amended Art. 223 (3) of PD 442 which provides that decision of Labor Arbiters on dismissed or separated employee insofar as reinstatement is concerned is immediately executory, EVEN PENDING APPEAL. The issuance of said TRO in GR 95219-20 DID NOT NULLIFY the rights of private respondents to their reinstatement and collection of back wages during the effectivity of the order but merely suspended its implementation pending validity determination of the NLRC resolutions. A finding of this Court that private respondents were not entitled to reinstatement would mean they had no right to collect back wages. But since the court affirmed the NLRC decision, respondents, being ordered reinstated, are entitled to their back wages. Petition dismissed