SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015
MELANIE E. DE OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. RPN-9/RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, INC., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Unlike an appeal, a pending petition for certiorari shall not stay the judgment or order that it assails. Unless a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction is issued, the assailed decision lapses into finality. Thereafter, it can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified, and execution may ensue.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari, filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, prays that the assailed March 5, 2010 Decision1 and July 8, 2010 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108457 be reversed and set aside. The Petition further prays that the recomputation that petitioner Melanie De Ocampo (De Ocampo) sought in the monetary award she had already received be permitted in order that she may receive additional backwages, separation pay, and 13th month pay, as well as 12% interest per annum.3
In its assailed March 5, 2010 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed De Ocampo's Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the September 30, 2008 Decision4 and December 15, 2008 Resolution5 of the National Labor Relations Commission. In its assailed July 8, 2010 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied De Ocampo's Motion for Reconsideration.6
For its part, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the December 13, 20077 Order of Executive Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala (Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala), which denied De Ocampo's Motion to Recompute the Monetary Award with Motion to Issue Alias Writ of Execution.8
De Ocampo was the complainant in a case for illegal dismissal, unpaid salaries, damages, and attorney's fees against respondent Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPN-9) and several RPN-9 officers, namely: President Cerge Remonde; News and Current Affairs Manager Rodolfo Lacuna; and Human Resources Manager Lourdes Angeles. This case was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-05 857-2003.9
On May 12, 2004, Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala rendered the Decision10 finding De Ocampo to have been illegally dismissed. RPN-9 was ordered to pay her separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and full backwages. The impleaded officers of RPN-9 were absolved from liability. The dispositive portion of this Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn its Decision12 dated February 28, 2006, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the May 12, 2004 Decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala. In the Resolution dated April 28, 2006, RPN-9's Motion for Reconsideration was denied.13
1. Declaring respondent Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPNI) also known as RPN-9 guilty of illegal dismissal for the reasons above-discussed. Consequently, the aforenamed respondent is hereby directed to pay complainant Melanie De Ocampo the sum of P206,433.50 and P109,200.00 representing her full-backwages and separation pay, respectively, for the reasons above-discussed, and as computed by the Examination and Computation Unit of this Arbitration Branch (See Annex "A", of this Decision).
2. Directing respondent Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPNI) also known as RPN-9 to pay complainant Melanie De Ocampo the sum of P54,600.00 representing her 13th Month Pay as compjted [sic] by the Examination and Computation Unit of this Arbitration Branch (See Annex "A", of this Arbitration Branch [sic]).
3. Directing the aforenamed respondent to pay complainant Melanie De Ocampo ten (10%) percent attorney's fees based on the total monetary award for having been forced to prosecute and/or litigate the instant case/complaint by hiring the services of legal counsel [sic].
4. Dismissing the claims for Holiday Pay and Service Incentive Leave Pay for lack of merit for the reasons above-cited.
5. Dismissing the other money claims and/or charges of complainant Melanie De Ocampo for lack of factual and legal basis.
6. Dismissing the charges against individual respondents Cerge Remonde, Rodolfo Lacuna, and Lourdes Angeles, as President, Manager of News and Current Affairs, and Manager of Human Resources, respectively, of respondent RPN-9 for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.41 (Citations omitted)Consistent with the principle of finality of judgments, it follows that no appeal may be taken from orders of execution of judgments.42
SECTION 10. Effect of Petition for Certiorari on Execution. — A petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall not stay the execution of the assailed decision unless a restraining order is issued by said courts.In contrast, Rule XI, Section 9 states the following with respect to appeals:
SECTION 9. Effect of Perfection of Appeal on Execution. — The perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on appeal, except execution for reinstatement pending appeal.Accordingly, where no restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction is issued, the assailed decision lapses into finality. Thereafter, execution may ensue. As Rule XI, Section 1 of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission states:
SECTION 1. Execution Upon Finality of Decision or Order. — a) A writ of execution may be issued motu proprio or on motion, upon a decision or order that finally disposes of the action or proceedings after the parties and their counsels or authorized representatives are furnished with copies of the decision or order in accordance with these Rules, but only after the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been filed, as shown by the certificate of finality. If an appeal has been filed, a writ of execution may be issued when there is an entry of judgment as provided for in Section 14 of Rule VII.The pivotal facts of this case are also settled. After the filing before the Court of Appeals of RPN-9's Petition for Certiorari, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order preventing, for a period of 60 days, the National Labor Relations Commission from enforcing its ruling. However, the sixty-day period lapsed without a writ of preliminary injunction being subsequently issued by the Court of Appeals.44 Thus, on May 27, 2006, the ruling of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala, as affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission, became final and executory on May 27, 2006.45 Conformably, Entry of Judgment was made on July 19, 2006.46
b) No motion for execution shall be entertained nor a writ of execution be issued unless the Labor Arbiter or the Commission is in possession of the records of the case which shall include an entry of judgment if the case was appealed; except that, as provided for in Section 14 of Rule V and Section 6 of this Rule, and in those cases where partial execution is allowed by law, the Labor Arbiter shall retain duplicate original copies of the decision to be implemented and proof of service thereof for the purpose of immediate enforcement.
Endnotes:
* Designated acting member per S.O. No. 2301 dated December 1, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 33-39. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Associate Justice of this court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Michael P. Elbinias of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
2 Id. at 40. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Associate Justice of this court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Michael P. Elbinias of the Former Sixth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
3 Id. at 29, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
4 Id. at 207-215. The Decision was penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
5 Id. at 217-218. The Resolution was penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
6 Id. at 40.
7 Id. at 95-101.
8 Id. at 79-89.
9 Id. at 33-34, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 5, 2010.
10 Id. at 41-54.
11 Id. at 53-54.
12 Id. at 56-70. The Decision was penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in by Commissioner Tito F. Genilo of the Third Division. Commissioner Romeo C. Lagman took no part.
13 Id. at 35, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 5, 2010.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 71.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 72, National Labor Relations Commission Order dated October 30, 2006.
19 Id. at 72-73.
20 Id. at 74-77.
21 Id. at 77.
22 Id. at 35, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 5, 2010, and 78, Motion to Release.
23 Id. at 78.
24 Id. at 79-89.
25 Id. at 87, Motion to Recompute the Monetary Award with Motion to Issue Alias Writ of Execution.
26 Id. at 95-101.
27 Id. at 207-215.
28 Id. at 214, National Labor Relations Commission Decision dated September 30, 2008.
29 Id. at 217-218.
30 Id. at 33-39.
31 Id. at 40.
32 Id. at 11-29.
33Industrial Timber Corp. v. Ababon, 515 Phil. 805, 816 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
34Filipro, Inc. v. Permanent Savings & Loan Bank, 534 Phil. 551, 560 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
35Siy v. National Labor Relations Commission, 505 Phil. 265, 273 (2005) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].
36Filipro, Inc. v. Permanent Savings & Loan Bank, 534 Phil. 551, 560 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
37Equatorial Realty Development v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., 387 Phil. 885, 896 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
38Filipro, Inc. v. Permanent Savings & Loan Bank, 534 Phil. 551, 560 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
39 Id.
40Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128967, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 586 [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
41 Id. at 599.
42 1997 RULES OF CIV. PROC., Rule 41, sec. 1(f) states:Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.43 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 7.
No appeal may be taken from:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
. . . .
(f) An order of execution;
44Rollo, p. 35.
45 Id. at 71.
46 Id.
47Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128967, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 586 [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
48Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 366 Phil. 678, 686 (1999) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
49Rollo, p. 72
50 Id. at 78.