CENTRAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. UNITED (CMC) TEXTILE WORKERS UNION-TGWF, RUBEN ALMARIO, GABRIEL PUZON, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LABOR ARBITER FRANCIS…

This case is about the conflicting
decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission regarding respondent Ruben
Almario whose reinstatement it had ordered in one
case but whom it had found to have abandoned his job in another case.  With respect to respondent Gabriel Puzon, the NLRC ordered his reinstatement although he had
resigned from his job.  The record
discloses the following undisputed facts:

1.   On January
31, 1974, the United (CMC) Textile Workers Union-TGWF filed with the
NLRC Case No. LR-2658, charging the employer, Central Textile Mills, Inc., with
unfair labor practices consisting of delaying the turnover of union dues (checkoff) and illegal suspension and projected dismissal of
fifty-nine employees including Almario and Puzon.

2.   At the same time, Almario
filed with the NLRC-RO4 Case No. 9-4733-74 for the recovery of
separation pay.

3.   On June
14, 1974, Puzon resigned
voluntarily from the textile firm. 
He executed a quitclaim wherein he stated that his resignation was in
conformity with the Termination Pay Law and that he had no claim against the
employer under existing laws arising out of his employment.  He said that he was physically fit when he
resigned and that he was not suffering from any sickness.

4.   On September
16, 1974, an NLRC arbitrator rendered a decision in Case No. LR-2658
wherein, inter alia, he directed the
reinstatement of Almario and Puzon
to their former positions with backwages from the
date of their dismissal or suspension up to the date of reinstatement without
loss of rank, seniority status and other privileges.  The arbitrator made the following findings:

“RUBEN ALMARIO – He went on leave
that expired on August 30, 1973
but he did not report to work despite the recommendation and findings of the
doctor that he is fit to work.  He was
given 2 days notice on October 29,
1973 but reported on November
17, 1973.  He had also
received numerous warnings in the past for unexcused absences.

“Considering that this last absence
of Almario was due to an illness (Tuberculosis) as
certified by Dr. Tianco, presumably the company
physician, it is safe to assume that when he failed to return to work
notwithstanding the doctor’s recommendation, he must not be feeling well or fit
to work.  Could it not be that Almario was avoiding a relapse, his illness of tuberculosis
being one that necessitates complete rest for its cure.

“He should not, therefore, be
considered as having abandoned his work. 
The cause of dismissal is not justified.”

“GABRIEL PUZON – He was meted out
three (3) suspensions (first, for 7 days for decreasing production; second, for
2 days for quitting work before time and third, for 5 days for smoking), and 4
warnings for unexcused absences and not using ID tag.

“While this record may not speak
well of the complainant, yet his projected dismissal was precipitated by his
not using his ID tag which could not be considered as a gross misconduct under
any circumstances.  It further appears
that for the year 1973 that was the only infraction he has committed.”

The textile firm
appealed.  The NLRC affirmed the
arbitrator’s decision in its decision of October 24, 1974. 
The Secretary also affirmed it in his decision of July 25, 1975.

5.   The textile firm then appealed to the
President of the Philippines.  Presidential Assistant Ronaldo
B. Zamora in his decision of August
18, 1976 affirmed the decisions of the Secretary of Labor, the NLRC
and the arbitrator in Case No. LR-2658.

6.   On the other hand, on December 17, 1974,
another arbitrator rendered a decision in Case No. 9-4733-74, dismissing
Almario’s claim for separation pay because he was
a chronic absentee, he had abandoned his job and he filed his claim about one
year after his alleged dismissal.

7.   Almario appealed to
the NLRC.  That agency on November 3, 1975 affirmed the
arbitrator’s decision.  It found that the
textile firm did not dismiss Almario who had
abandoned his job.  Hence, his claim for
separation pay was unjustified.  Note
that the NLRC decision in Case No. 9-4733-74, which has also become
final, is markedly inconsistent with its decision in Case No. LR-2658.

8.   Since the decision
in Case No. LR-2658 had become final and executory, an examiner was
directed to compute the backwages due to Almario and Puzon.  The textile firm filed a motion for reconsideration.  It called the NLRC’s
attention to the decision in Case No. 9-4733-74 wherein the NLRC found that Almario had abandoned his job.  It also called the NLRC’s
attention to Puzon’s resignation and quitclaim.

9.   The examiner in his report of January 10, 1976, found that the backwages and benefits payable to Almario
and Puzon amounted to P8,751.43
and P8,112.31 respectively, or a total of P16,863.74.

10. The textile firm interposed an opposition to
the examiner’s report.  The Labor Arbiter
approved the report in his order of January
26, 1977.  The firm appealed
to the NLRC.  It affirmed the examiner’s
report in its decision of April 24,
1979.

11. A writ of execution was issued.  In that writ the accumulated amount due to Almario and Puzon was found to be
P44,964.43 but there is no showing as to how that amount was arrived at and
whether the employer was heard on the computation of the backwages.  The earnings, if any, of Puzon
and Almario during the time they were laid off, were
not taken into account.

12. On the other hand, there has been partial
execution as to the backwages of Puzon.  The record does not show how much was
received by Puzon as a result of the execution.

13. The textile firm filed a motion to quash the
writ of execution.  It invoked once more
the NLRC’s decision in the other case, Case No.
9-4733-74, wherein Almario was held to be not
entitled to any separation pay because he had abandoned his job.  It cited again Puzon’s
resignation and quitclaim already mentioned.

14. The motion was denied on July 11, 1979 by the Labor Arbiter who issued the
writ of execution.  In view of that
denial, the textile firm filed on July
18, 1979 the instant certiorari case assailing the
reinstatement of Almario and Puzon
with backwages and praying that the execution thereof
be enjoined.

The legal issue is whether it is just
and proper to execute the decision in NLRC Case No. LR-2658 for the reinstatement
of Almario and Puzon with backwages notwithstanding the NLRC’s
final decision in Case No. 9-4733-74 that Almario had
abandoned his job and in spite of the resignation and quitclaim of Puzon.

We hold that this case is covered by
the rule “that when, after a judgment has become final, facts and circumstances
transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust, the interested party
may ask the court to modify or alter the judgment to harmonize the same with
justice and the facts” (De los Santos vs.
Rodriguez, L-23170, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 451, 458 and cases cited therein;
City of Cebu vs. Mendoza, L-26321, August 19, 1975,
66 SCRA 174, 177).

That rule applies to NLRC judgments
because the NLRC, although an administrative agency, partakes of the nature of
a special labor tribunal.

It would be inequitable to enforce the
judgment in favor of Almario and Puzon
considering the contradictory decisions of the NLRC in Almario’s
case and considering that in Puzon’s case his
resignation and quitclaim were not duly taken into account by the NLRC.

Simple justice demands that the NLRC
should rehear the cases of Almario and Puzon and reconcile its decision of October 24, 1974 in Case No. LR-2658 for their
reinstatement (Per Commissioners Amado G. Inciong, Diego P. Atienza and
Ricardo C. Castro) with its decision of November 3, 1975 in Case No. 9-4733-74 holding that Almario
had abandoned his job (Per Commissioners Atienza,
Geronimo Q. Quadra and Cleto P. Villatuya).  This latter case should be consolidated with
Case No. LR-2658 insofar as it concerns Almario and Puzon.

As a matter of rudimentary fairness,
the NLRC should also rule upon the effect of Puzon’s
resignation and quitclaim upon the union’s claim for his reinstatement with backwages.  This
matter was not squarely resolved by the NLRC.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the
NLRC reinstating Ruben Almario and Gabriel Puzon with backwages, its
decision holding that Almario had abandoned his job
and the writ of execution for the enforcement of its decision in Case No.
LR-2658 are reversed and set aside.

The NLRC is directed to rehear the cases
of Almario and Puzon, as
indicated above, and to give the parties full opportunity to prove their
contentions.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Antonio, Concepcion,
Jr., and Santos,
JJ., concur.

Barredo,
J., (Chairman), concurs in a separate opinion.

Abad
Santos, J., no part.