G.R. No. 120931. October 20, 2000
TAG FIBERS, INC. AND RAFAEL ZULUAGA, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER REYNOSO A. BELARMINO, ICARDO ABANES, GUILLERMO ABELLANA, ANGELO AND…
PARDO, J.:
The case is a petition for certiorari[1] to set aside (1) the resolution of the
National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII, Cebu
City,[2] the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby resolve that respondents herein
jointly severally grant each of the 21 petitioners the sum of TWENTY SEVEN
THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (P27,300.00) Pesos or the total sum of FIVE HUNDRED
SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (P573,300.00) Pesos in concept of
separation pay of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY (P2,730.00) Pesos each per
year of service from February 1983 to June, 1993.SO ORDERED.”
(2) the resolution[3] disposing as
follows:
“WHEREFORE, respondents are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, to
each of the twenty-one (21) complainants a reinstatement salary and separation
pay, computed as heretofore indicated:
“I. Salary (April 16, -May 4, 1993) P90.73 x 19 days
—————–“II. Separation Pay P90.73 x 26 days X 10 yr. ——————— “Multiplied by no. of complainants “TOTAL LIABILITY OF RESPONDENTS: “SO ORDERED.”
and (3) the resolution that denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.[4]
The facts are as follows:
In August 1979, petitioner Tag Fibers, Inc. absorbed respondents from its
predecessors, Smith Bell and Company, Conrad and Company and Columbian Rope and
company as regular and permanent employees until the second week of February
1983, when they were all terminated because of company losses.[5] On February 11, 1983, petitioner Tag
Fibers, Inc. re-hired respondents Ricardo Abanes and twenty (20) others
effective on the day after the termination of their employment as piece-rate
workers.[6]
On July 25, 1983, when petitioners learned that respondents filed a complaint
with the Regional Director, Region VII, Ministry of Labor & Employment for
violation of the Minimum Wage Law and the granting of cost of living allowances,
petitioners prohibited them from working.[7]
On August 22, 1983, respondents filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for
illegal dismissal with reinstatement and payment of backwages, cost of living
allowances and other benefits.[8]
On January 11, 1985, Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque III rendered a decision
disposing as follows:
“WHEREFORE, responsive to all the foregoing, respondent TAG FIBER INC.,
and/or RAFAEL ZULUAGA, Jr., is hereby ordered to reinstate complainants to their
respective former positions without loss of seniority rights and privileges and
to pay jointly an severally the total sum of TEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY
EIGHT PESOS AND 68/100 (P10,858.68) to be deposited with this office within ten
(10) days from receipt of this Decision for appropriate disposition.“SO ORDERED.
“Cebu City, Philippines, 11 January 1985.
|
“FELIPE T. GARDUQUE II
|
||
|
“Labor Arbiter”[9]
|
On February 1, 1985, petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).[10]
On February 17, 1986, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and
affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.[11]
On May 2, 1986, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.[12] However, the NLRC denied the motion in a
resolution dated July 30, 1986.[13]
On September 5, 1986, respondents filed with the Labor Arbiter a motion for
the issuance of a writ of execution.[14]
On October 15, 1986, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a petition for
certiorari for the nullification of the NLRC decision.[15]
On October 5, 1987, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to
sufficiently show that the respondent Commission had committed a grave abuse of
discretion in rendering the questioned judgment.[16]
Meantime, on January 22, 1987, Labor arbiter Alhambra Llenos Alfafara issued
the corresponding writ of execution.[17]
On February 15, 1993, Labor Arbiter Reynoso A. Belarmino issued another writ
of execution of the January 15, 1985 decision of Labor Arbiter Felipe T.
Garduque,[18] in execution of which
petitioners paid respondents the full amount of the monetary award of
P10,858.68, but refused to reinstate the respondents.[19] During the execution proceedings,
respondents pressed for more backwages that was not provided in the Garduque
decision. Consequently, the issue of reinstatement was set for a conference
between the parties.[20]
On March 23, 1993, the Labor Arbiter set the conference between the
parties.[21] However, on May 3, 1993,
respondents filed a motion to direct petitioners to pay them backwages in view
of petitioners’ refusal to reinstate them.[22]
On July 12, 1993, Labor Arbiter Reynoso a. Belarmino issued a resolution
finding that strained relationship existed between the employer and employees
and resolved to grant respondents the sum of P27,300.00 each or a total of
P573,300, in the concept of separation pay of P2,730.00 each per year of service
from February 1983 to June 1993.[23]
On April 19, 1995, the NLRC modified the above-mentioned resolution of the
Labor Arbiter.[24] On May 11, 1995,
petitioners filed with the NLRC a motion for reconsideration of the April 19,
1995 resolution assailing the grant of separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement.[25] On May 26, 1995, the
NLRC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.[26]
Hence, this petition.[27]
Petitioners contend that the monetary aspect of the judgment dated January
11, 1985 has been satisfied an the Labor Arbiter’s authority to enforce judgment
is merely ministerial; hence, the Labor Arbiter cannot modify or vary the final
and executory decision of the NLRC.
We find the petition is meritorious.
Under Rule 39, Section 6, 1964 Revised Rules of Court, a judgment may be
executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the
date it becomes final and executory.
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of
limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.[28] This rule applies to the case as the
Rules of Court are applicable to labor cases in a suppletory capacity.[29]
In this particular case, the January 11, 1985 decision of Labor Arbiter
Felipe T. Garduque II became final after the NLRC denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration on July 30, 1986. Hence, the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction
when he set a conference on March 23, 1993. The conference could no longer be
lawfully convoked.
When the NLRC issued the resolution ordering the petitioner to pay separation
pay from February 1983 to June 1993, it modified its own final judgment, and
worse, acted without jurisdiction. The finality of a decision is a
jurisdictional event that cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a
party.[30]
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition
and SETS ASIDE the NLRC resolution in NLRC Case No. 701-82
dated July 12, 1993, the resolution in NLRC Case NO. V-0392-93, promulgated on
April 19, 1995, and the resolution in the same case promulgated on May 26, 1995,
which are hereby declared VOID.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Under Rule 65, 1964 Revised Rules of
Court.
[2] In NLRC Case No. 701-83,
promulgated on July 12,1993, Rollo, pp. 20-24. Reynoso A. Belarmino.
Labor Arbiter.
[3] In NLRC Case No. V-0392-93,
promulgated on April 19, 1995, Rollo, pp. 26-31. Cañete, Comm.,
ponente, Ceniza, Pres. Comm. And Batuhan, Comm., concurring.
[4] In NLRC Case No. V-0392-93,
promulgated on May 26, 1995, Rollo, pp. 34-36.
[5] Joint affidavit, par. 3, Original
Record, pp. 39-41.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Joint Affidavit, pars. 4-5,
supra, Note 5.
[8] Complaint, Original Record, pp.
1-3.
[9] Original Record, pp. 149-153.
[10] Ibid., pp. 74-85.
[11] Ibid., pp. 92-95.
[12] Ibid., pp. 96-99.
[13] Ibid., p. 111.
[14] Ibid., pp. 115-118.
[15] G.R. No. 75982.
[16] Original Record, p. 201.
[17] Ibid., pp. 186-187.
[18] Ibid., p. 204.
[19] Ibid., p. 210.
[20] Ibid., p. 211.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid., pp. 222-230.
[23] Ibid., p. 239;
supra, Note 2.
[24] Ibid., p. 332;
supra, Note 3.
[25] Ibid., pp. 355-360.
[26] Ibid., p. 363;
supra, Note 4.
[27] Filed on July 21, 1995,
Rollo, pp. 2-17. On March 25, 1996, we gave due course to the petition
and required the parties to file their respective memoranda (Rollo, pp.
94-95). On June 17, 1996, petitioners filed their memorandum (Rollo, pp.
106-117). On January 27, 1997, respondents filed their memorandum (Rollo,
pp. 122-138). The petition involves pure questions of law; thus, we except this
case from the ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494
[1998].
[28] Camacho vs. Court of
Appeals, 287 SCRA 611 [1998].
[29] Associated Anglo-American Tobacco
Corporation vs. NLRC, 306 SCRA 380, 385 [1999].
[30] Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.
vs. NLRC, 306 SCRA 151 [1999].