SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 229302, June 20, 2018
CONSOLIDATED DISTILLERS OF THE FAR EAST, INC., Petitioner, v. ROGEL N. ZARAGOZA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Petitioner Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. (Condis) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated March 17, 2016 and Resolution3 dated January 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 135538. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision4 dated January 13, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Sixth Division, which declared as null and void the Labor Arbiter (LA)'s Resolution5 dated August 3, 2013.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. The January 13, 2014 Decision and February 28, 2014 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, Sixth Division in LER Case No. 10-280-13 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As modified, private respondent Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. is ORDERED to pay petitioner Rogel N. Zaragoza the following amounts: backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the date he was illegally dismissed until finality of this Decision and separation pay computed from the first day of employment on April 18, 1994 until the finality of this Decision at the rate of one (1) month salary for every year of service.Condis moved for reconsideration but this was denied in the CA's Resolution dated January 10, 2017. Hence, this Petition.
The sum of P454,986.98 previously received by Rogel N. Zaragoza by virtue of the release order of the Labor Arbiter must be deducted from the foregoing awards.
SO ORDERED.13
I.
The Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that Petitioner did not raise new issues in its Partial Motion for Reconsideration.
- The Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error in applying the doctrines laid down in Bani Rural Bank vs. De Guzman, to this instant case;
- The factual findings of the Honorable Court of Appeals are binding to this Honorable Court as illustrated in the case of Salcedo vs. People. This being the case, the question of whether or not there exists a supervening event, which prohibited Respondent's reinstatement is already settled. Thus, the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reckoning the period of back wages and separation pay until finality of the decision of this case and not until the time, the supervening event and legal impossibility to reinstate arose in this case, in accordance with the latest ruling in Olympia Housing Inc. Case; and
- In awarding Zaragoza backwages and separation pay beyond the occurrence of the supervening event, which gave rise to the impossibility of reinstatement, the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error by not considering that these would be confiscatory, and would result in unjust enrichment, not to mention that Zaragoza will be placed in a better position vis a vis the other employees of CONDIS who were separated as a result of the supervening event, which gave rise to the legal impossibility of reinstatement.
II.
The Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error in not resolving the issue regarding the award of Zaragoza's allowances, which were based on evidence which were only presented during execution proceedings, and which are clearly ad hoc in nature.14 (Emphasis omitted)
x x x when separation pay is ordered after the finality of the decision ordering the reinstatement by reason of a supervening event that makes the award of reinstatement no longer possible (as in the case), backwages is computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay.21The reason for this, as the Court explained in Bani, is that "[w]hen there is an order of separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement or when the reinstatement aspect is waived or subsequently ordered in light of a supervening event making the award of reinstatement no longer possible), the employment relationship is terminated only upon the finality of the decision ordering the separation pay. The finality of the decision cuts-off the employment relationship and represents the final settlement of the rights and obligations of the parties against each other."22
The above computation of backwages, when separation pay is ordered, has been the Court's consistent ruling. In Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), we explained that the finality of the decision becomes the reckoning point because in allowing separation pay, the final decision effectively declares that the employment relationship ended so that separation pay and backwages are to be computed up to that point.23Further, Condis cannot find support in Olympia Housing, as this case, in fact, holds against its position. In Olympia Housing, the Court considered that the employer therein was able to prove in a separate labor case that it had closed its business and followed all statutory requirements arising from the closure of its business, i.e., notice to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), notice to the employees, and financial statements substantiating its claim that it was operating at a loss. Given this, the Court therein ruled that the employer is liable for backwages and separation pay only until the date of the closure of the business of the employer, even if this was prior to the LA's decision finding illegal dismissal, thus:
The CA correctly ruled that the principle of stare decisis finds no relevance in the present case. To begin with, there is no doctrine of law that is similarly applicable in both the present case and in Ocampo v. OHI. While both are illegal dismissal cases, they are based on completely different sets of facts and involved distinct issues. In the instant case, Lapastora cries illegal dismissal after he was arbitrarily placed on a floating status on mere suspicion that he was involved in theft incidents within the company premises without being given the opportunity to explain his side or any formal investigation of his participation. On the other hand, in Ocampo v. OHI, the petitioners therein questioned the validity of OHI's closure of business and the eventual termination of all the employees. Thus, the NLRC ruled upon both cases differently.For Olympia Housing to apply, the employer must prove the closure of its business in full and complete compliance with all statutory requirements prior to the date of the finality of the award of backwages and separation pay.
Nonetheless, the Court finds the recognition of the validity of OHI's cessation of business in the Decision dated November 22, 2002 of the NLRC, which was affirmed by the CA and this Court, a supervening event which inevitably alters the judgment award in favor of Lapastora. The NLRC noted that OHI complied with all the statutory requirements, including the filing of a notice of closure with the DOLE and furnishing written notices of termination to all employees effective 30 days from receipt. OHI likewise presented financial statements substantiating its claim that it is operating at a loss and that the closure of business is necessary to avert further losses. The action of the OHI, the NLRC held, is a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Thus, while the finding of illegal dismissal in favor of Lapastora subsists, his reinstatement was rendered a legal impossibility with OHI's closure of business. In Galindez v. Rural Bank of Llanera, Inc., the Court noted:Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which one had been removed still exists or there is an unfilled position more or less of similar nature as the one previously occupied by the employee. Admittedly, no such position is available. Reinstatement therefore becomes a legal impossibility. The law cannot exact compliance with what is impossible.Considering the impossibility of Lapastora's reinstatement, the payment of separation pay, in lieu thereof, is proper. The amount of separation pay to be given to Lapastora must be computed from March 1995, the time he commenced employment with OHI, until the time when the company ceased operations in October 2000. As a twin relief, Lapastora is likewise entitled to the payment of backwages, computed from the time he was unjustly dismissed, or from February 24, 2000 until October 1, 2000 when his reinstatement was rendered impossible without fault on his part.24
The amount of P362,692.25 is broken down as follows:
x x x xb.ordering respondents to pay complainant, jointly and severally, full backwages, computed from the date of his unlawful dismissal up to the time of actual reinstatement, which as of the date of this decision amount to Php362,692.25[.]25
The LA, however, in its Resolution dated August 3, 2013 granting Rogel's Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution, added the following amounts which were not in the LA's Decision:
BACKWAGES: 12/03/07-03/03/09 = 15 months 307,500.00b. 13th Month Pay: P307,500.00/1225,625.00c. VL/SL: (15 days VL, 15 days SL per year P788.46 x 2.5 days/month x 15 months)29,567.2526
The foregoing amounts should not be included in computing Rogel's backwages and separation pay given that the decision of the LA awarding backwages had already become final and executory; thus triggering the rule on immutability of judgment. As the Court held in Bani:20,500.0011/05/07- 12/02/07 HOTEL/LODGING ALLOWANCE: 11/05/07- 8/3/13 - P6,779.90 x 69 months467,813.10MEAL ALLOWANCE: 11/05/07-8/3/13: P4,111.33283,681.77MONTHLY INCENTIVE OF P2,000.00: 11105/07-08/03/13138,000.0027
As a rule, "a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court, be it the highest Court of the land, rendered it. Any attempt on the part of the x x x entities charged with the execution of a final judgment to insert, change or add matters not clearly contemplated in the dispositive portion violates the rule on immutability of judgments." x x x28From the Decision of the LA that became final and executory on March 30, 2012 (G.R. No. 196038), the computation of the backwages of Rogel is composed of his basic pay, 13th month pay, and monetized vacation and sick leaves. Having attained finality, the LA, during execution proceedings, cannot add the hotel and meal allowances and the monthly incentive to the computation. To be sure, Rogel had an opportunity to present evidence on these during the Illegal Dismissal Case and he should have presented them there. Having failed to do so, he cannot claim, and the LA or even the Court cannot add, these items, which were not contemplated in the dispositive portion of the LA's March 3, 2009 Decision. The CA therefore erred in affirming the LA's computation of backwages and separation pay.
(a) backwages from the date he was illegally dismissed on November 20, 2007 until the finality of this Decision; andThe sum of P454,986.98 previously received by Rogel N. Zaragoza by virtue of the release order of the Labor Arbiter must be deducted from the foregoing awards.
(b) separation pay computed from April 18, 1994, the first day of Rogel's employment, until the finality of this Decision, at the rate of one (1) month salary for every year of service.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-34.
2 Id. at 36-52. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
3 Id. at 82-84.
4 Id. at 464-483. Penned by Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro, with Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra concurring.
5 Id. at 124-130. Penned by Labor Arbiter Jesus Orlando M. Quiñones.
6 Id. at 355.
7 Id. at 357.
8 Id. at 39.
9 See id. at 38 and 39.
10 Id. at 41, 130.
11 Id. at 41, 482.
12 Id. at 42.
13 Id. at 51-52.
14 Id. at 16-17.
15 See id. at 30-31.
16 See id. at 7.
17 Id. at 18.
18 721 Phil. 84 (2013).
19 778 Phil. 189 (2016).
20Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman, supra note 18, at 102.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 103.
23 Id. at 102.
24Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Lapastora, supra note 19, at 204-206.
25Rollo, p. 140.
26 Id. at 142.
27 Id. at 130.
28Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman, supra note 18, at 97.
29 Id. at 104-105.