Digest

LEO A. GONZALES vs.
SOLID CEMENT CORPORATION and ALLEN QUERUBIN

G.R. No. 198423. October 23, 2012
Facts
 In the original case involving the same parties, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the petitioner,
Gonzales, finding that he was illegally dismissed by Solid Cement. The case was appealed to the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and from there to the Court of Appeals (CA) on a petition for certiorari
and finally to the Supreme Court (SC). All affirmed the decision of the LA. The ruling of the SC became final
and entry of judgment took place on July 12, 2005.
 The original case was remanded to the LA for execution. Gonzales was awarded with backwages, food and
transportation allowance, moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Actual reinstatement
took place on July 15, 2008.
 When Gonzales moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution on August 4, 2008, he included several
items as components in computing the amount of his backwages. Under the LA's execution order dated
August 18, 2009, Gonzales was entitled to a total of P965,014.15.
 The NLRC, in its decision dated February 19, 2010 and resolution dated May 18, 2010, modified the LA's
execution order which increased Gonzales' entitlement to P2,805,698.04, including additional backwages
from LA decision (in the original case) to actual reinstatement, salary differentials and 13 th month pay
differential .
 On a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA set aside the NLRC's decision and
reinstated the LA's order, hence the petition for review before the SC.
 The Court denied Gonzales’ petitioner for review and subsequent 1st motion for reconsideration, hence the
filing of 2nd motion for reconsideration (MR).
Issue
1. W/N the Court can legally vacate the assailed judgment despite its finality.
2. W/N the re-computation of awards during execution of an illegal dismissal decision violates the principle of
immutability of final judgments.
3. W/N the CA was legally correct in finding that the NLRC acted outside its jurisdiction when it modified the
LA's execution order.
Held
1. YES. The general rule is that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable.
However, the CA's actions outside its jurisdiction cannot produce legal effects and cannot likewise be
perpetuated by a simple reference to the principle of immutability of final judgment; a void decision can
never become final. CA did not only legally err but even acted outside its jurisdiction when it issued its May
31, 2011 decision. Specifically, by deleting the awards properly granted by the NLRC and by reverting back
to the LA's execution order, the CA effectively varied the final executory judgement in the original case, as
modified on appeal and ultimately affirmed by the Court, and thereby acted outside its jurisdiction.
 "The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical
errors, (2) the so called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments.
Here, the judgment is considered void, and thus, can be legally vacated.
2. NO. The decision consists essentially of two parts.
 The first is the finding of the illegality of the dismissal and the awards of separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement, backwages, attorney's fees, and legal interests. The second part is the computation of the
awards made.
 The Court held that under the terms of the decision under execution, no essential change is made by a re-
computation as this step is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of
dismissal declared in that decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on
until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of the Labor Code. The re-computation of the
consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or
amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the
computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the
principle of immutability of final judgments.
3. YES as to the deletion of the award for salary differential and 13 th month pay differential. The Court, citing
the case of BPI Employees Union ruled that in computing backwages, salary increases from the time of
dismissal until actual reinstatement, and benefits not yet granted at the time of dismissal are excluded.
 NO, as to the deletion of the payment of legal interest of 12% on total judgment. In BPI, the Court held that
even said that "[t]his natural consequence of a final judgment is not defeated notwithstanding the fact that
the parties were at variance in the computation of what is due" under the judgment. In the present case,
the LA's failure to include this award in its order was properly corrected by the NLRC on appeal, only to be
unreasonably deleted by the CA. Such deletion, based solely on the immutability of the judgment in the
original case, is a wrong consideration that fatally afflicts and renders the CA's ruling void.
 NO also as to the deletion of additional backwages and 13 th month pay, computed from the LA’s decision
until the payroll reinstatement of the petitioner. These amounts are not excluded from the concept of
backwages as the salaries fell due after Gonzales should have been reinstated, while the 13th month pay
fell due for the same period by legal mandate.
MR was partially granted.

Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEO A. GONZALES vs.

SOLID CEMENT CORPORATION and ALLEN QUERUBIN

You might also like