ASSOCIATION OF DRUGSTORE EMPLOYEES, PETITIONER, VS. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Association of Drugstore Employees versus Roldan

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Association of Drugstore Employees, acting in representation of five dismissed workers, against Presiding Judge Arsenio C. Roldan and the other judges of the Court of Industrial Relations, together with Farmacia Oro. The association asks the Supreme Court to correct an order that cut short the back wages awarded to the five employees by a decision that had already become final and executory. The case matters because it fixes a rule every labor lawyer must know: once a judgment becomes final, the court that rendered it cannot, through an order of execution, alter the terms of that judgment; execution must follow the judgment, not rewrite it.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of Industrial Relations, which on March 4, 1952 issued an order directing Farmacia Oro to reinstate the five employees to the same positions from which they were removed, with pay from the time of their dismissal. Farmacia Oro filed two motions for reconsideration, both denied, and the decision became final. The association then filed motions for execution, and after hearing, the writ was issued on July 31, 1952. Farmacia Oro later moved to suspend payment of the back wages, and on October 21, 1952 Presiding Judge Arsenio C. Roldan issued an order limiting back wages to the period from October 23, 1951 to June 12, 1952. The association's motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution of the court in banc on January 6, 1953, with three judges voting for the resolution and two dissenting. The association then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Facts

On March 4, 1952, the Court of Industrial Relations ordered Farmacia Oro to reinstate Leonila Calcas, Marina C. Villaroman, Salud Aranza, Vicente Sayago and Quirico Saratan to the same positions from which they were removed, with pay from the time of their dismissal. Farmacia Oro's motions for reconsideration were denied, and the decision became final. The association, representing the five employees, filed motions for execution on May 21 and June 13, 1952, but these were not acted upon. A supplemental motion followed on July 14, 1952, and after hearing, the writ of execution was issued on July 31, 1952.

On August 14, 1952, a deputy sheriff of Manila brought the five employees to the store of Farmacia Oro at Rizal Avenue, Manila, but they were admitted to positions lower than those they held before dismissal. On August 31, 1952, they were dismissed again, on the ground that Farmacia Oro had to close two branch stores, although its motion for permission to close was still pending.

Under the writ of execution, the sheriff garnished from Farmacia Oro's account in the Philippine Trust Company the sum of 5,295.24 pesos, representing back wages of the five employees from October 31, 1951, when they were dismissed, until July 31, 1952, when the writ was issued. On September 22, 1952, the Court of Industrial Relations authorized its clerk of court to disburse the amount, but before this could be done Farmacia Oro filed a motion to suspend payment. It alleged that the employees had employment elsewhere during the pendency of the case and that their wages from such employment should be deducted, and that before the decision became final and executory, or on June 12, 1952, the employees were asked through their attorneys to report for duty and failed to do so, so that Farmacia Oro was not bound to pay back wages from the date of such notice.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations could suspend the payment of back wages and limit them to the period ending June 12, 1952, when its decision of March 4, 1952 had already become final and executory.
• Whether or not the notice of June 12, 1952 asking the employees to report for duty was sufficient to cut off their right to back wages.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the rule that a final and executory judgment may no longer be altered, and it applies the terms of the Court of Industrial Relations order of March 4, 1952, which directed Farmacia Oro:

To reinstate Leonila Calcas, Marina C. Villaroman, Salud Aranza, Vicente Sayago and Quirico Saratan to the same position from which they were removed, with pay from the time of their dismissal.

This order is the judgment whose terms the Court held could not be departed from in the order of execution.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that in suspending payment of the back wages and limiting them to June 12, 1952, the Court of Industrial Relations departed from the terms of its final and executory decision of March 4, 1952. The Court set aside the order of October 21, 1952 and the resolution of January 6, 1953, and directed the Court of Industrial Relations to enforce its decision of March 4, 1952.

On the second issue, the Court held that the notice of June 12, 1952 could not for practical purposes be decisive against the employees. At the time the notice was given, the decision of March 4, 1952 was not yet final and executory, since the petition for review on certiorari filed by Farmacia Oro with the Supreme Court had not yet been finally disposed of, its judgment dismissing the petition becoming final only on July 7, 1952. The Court also noted that Farmacia Oro interposed no opposition to the three motions for execution, which logically controverted the legal effect of the notice and conveyed the idea that execution was necessary to restore the employees to their former positions. Moreover, Farmacia Oro placed the employees in lower positions when they were brought to its store on August 14, 1952 under the writ of execution, which was inconsistent with the claim that it intended to reinstate them as early as June 12, 1952. The Court further observed that the employees lived in different places and in the provinces, so that compliance with the notice could not have been expected right on June 12.

Doctrine

A judgment that has become final and executory can no longer be altered or modified, and the court that rendered it must enforce it according to its terms. An order of execution that suspends or cuts short the back wages awarded in a final judgment departs from that judgment and must be set aside. A notice to report for duty given while the judgment of reinstatement is not yet final cannot defeat the employees' right to back wages under that judgment, especially where the employer's own conduct, such as not opposing execution and placing the employees in lower positions, shows it did not intend to reinstate them at the time of the notice.

Disposition

The association won. The Court set aside the order of October 21, 1952 and the resolution of January 6, 1953, directed the Court of Industrial Relations to enforce its decision of March 4, 1952, and ordered Farmacia Oro to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: execution must follow the final judgment, not rewrite it. Examiners use this case to test the rule on finality of judgments and the limits of a court's power in issuing writs of execution, particularly in labor reinstatement and back wage awards.