G.R. No. 111985 - JUNE 1994 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 111985June 30, 1994 Industrial Timber Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 111870June 30, 1994 Air Material Wing Savings & Loan Asso., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 107951June 30, 1994 Epifanio Fige, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104947June 30, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Dela Peña G.R. No. 102350June 30, 1994 Trade Unions of the Phils. vs. Bienvenido E. Laguesma G.R. No. 97442June 30, 1994 Pilar T. Ocampo vs. Court of Appeals et al G.R. No. 93846June 30, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Eliseo Calegan, et al. G.R. No. 78109June 30, 1994 Solomon Rolloque, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. RTJ-91-660June 30, 1994 Napoleon A. Abiera vs. Jdg. Bonifacio Sanz Maceda G.R. No. 109770June 28, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Andion Yangan, et al. G.R. No. 107804June 28, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Primitivo Paglinawan G.R. No. 105909June 28, 1994 Municipality of Pililla, Rizal vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 113087June 27, 1994 Rebecco Panlilio, et al. vs. Hon. Josefina G. Salonga, et al. G.R. No. 112795June 27, 1994 Augusto Capuz vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 112066June 27, 1994 Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 110436June 27, 1994 Roman A. Cruz, Jr., vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 107837June 27, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo V. Ibarra G.R. No. 105378June 27, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Sadang, et al. G.R. No. 102567-68June 27, 1994 Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 101576June 27, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Restituto C. Perciano, et al. G.R. No. 100156June 27, 1994 Isidora Salud vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 93980June 27, 1994 Clemente Calde vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 93807June 27, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Inocentes Daguinutan, et al. G.R. No. 93485June 27, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro R. Cedenio, et al. G.R. No. 72078June 27, 1994 Eutiquio Marquino, et al. vs. Bibiana Romano-Pagadora, et al. G.R. No. 51457June 27, 1994 Lucia Embrado et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. A.M. No. RTJ-93-1089June 27, 1994 Virgilio Chan vs. Jdg. Emerito M. Agcaoili G.R. No. 109161June 21, 1994 Victor De La Serna, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 108771June 21, 1994 The People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo V. Benitez G.R. No. 111304June 17, 1994 Nemesio Arturo S. Yabut, et al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al. G.R. No. 108738June 17, 1994 Roberto Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 107950June 17, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Jose S. Antonio G.R. No. 107940June 17, 1994 Gaudencio Mapalo vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 102406June 17, 1994 Sampaguita Garments Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission et. al. G.R. Nos. 100376-77June 17, 1994 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 96644June 17, 1994 Juan Oclarit, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94308June 16, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Ruben E. Ilaoa, et al. G.R. No. 82729-32June 15, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando B. Verchez, et al. G.R. No. 112050June 15, 1994 Quintin F. Felizardo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 106640-42June 15, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Eugenio Resuma, et al. G.R. No. 103275June 15, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Rodolfo M. Bellaflor, et al. G.R. No. 101117June 15, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Cedon ADM. No. RTJ-93-999June 15, 1994 Moises S. Bentulan vs. Manuel P. Dumatol G.R. No. 112386June 14, 1994 Marcelino C. Libanan vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 109454June 14, 1994 Jose C. Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 108854June 14, 1994 Ma. Paz Fernandez Krohn vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 107918June 14, 1994 Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 107432June 14, 1994 Erlinda B. Causapin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104284June 14, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Rhodora M. Sulit G.R. No. 106897June 13, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Christian P. Sandagon G.R. No. 106429June 13, 1994 Joselita Salita vs. Hon. Delilah Magtolis, et al. G.R. No. 106136June 13, 1994 Rosario G. Jimenez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 100424June 13, 1994 University Physicians Services, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 96951June 13, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo A. Gabas, et al. A.M. No. P-93-930June 13, 1994 Andres Medilo, et al. vs. Manuel A. Asodisen, et al. G.R. No. 93730-31June 10, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Ompad, Jr. G.R. No. 75508June 10, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Sgt. Felix Padilla G.R. No. 102056-57June 8, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Sarellana G.R. No. 101631June 8, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Ibay G.R. No. 94147June 8, 1994 Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Rodolfo Toledano, et al. G.R. No. 106644-45June 7, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Ignacio G.R. No. 104654June 6, 1994 Republic of the Philippines vs. Rosalio G. De La Rosa, et al. G.R. No. 107847June 2, 1994 Irma C. Alfonso vs. Commission On Elections, et al. G.R. No. 107057June 2, 1994 Teodoro Araos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 106107June 2, 1994 Agustin Chu vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 105436June 2, 1994 Eugenio Jurilla, et al. vs. Commission On Elections, et al. G.R. No. 86639June 2, 1994 Ma. Theresa R. Alberto vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 85455June 2, 1994 Edith Juinio Atienza vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 76714June 2, 1994 Salud Teodoro Vda. De Perez vs. Zotico A. Tolete G.R. No. 45158June 2, 1994 Zenaida M. Palma vs. Court of Appeals A.M. No. RTJ-92-881June 2, 1994 Antonio A. Gallardo vs. Sinforoso V. Tabamo, Jr. A.M. No. P-93-811June 2, 1994 Biyaheros Mart Livelihood Association, Inc., vs. Benjamin L. Cabusao, Jr., et al. G.R. Nos. 104872-73June 1, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Elbert S. Amar, et al. G.R. No. 49065June 1, 1994 Evelio B. Javier, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Industrial Timber Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Air Material Wing Savings & Loan Asso., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Epifanio Fige, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Dela Peña Trade Unions of the Phils. vs. Bienvenido E. Laguesma Pilar T. Ocampo vs. Court of Appeals et al People of the Philippines vs. Eliseo Calegan, et al. Solomon Rolloque, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Napoleon A. Abiera vs. Jdg. Bonifacio Sanz Maceda People of the Philippines vs. Andion Yangan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Primitivo Paglinawan Municipality of Pililla, Rizal vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Rebecco Panlilio, et al. vs. Hon. Josefina G. Salonga, et al. Augusto Capuz vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Roman A. Cruz, Jr., vs. People of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo V. Ibarra People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Sadang, et al. Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Restituto C. Perciano, et al. Isidora Salud vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Clemente Calde vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Inocentes Daguinutan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pedro R. Cedenio, et al. Eutiquio Marquino, et al. vs. Bibiana Romano-Pagadora, et al. Lucia Embrado et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. Virgilio Chan vs. Jdg. Emerito M. Agcaoili Victor De La Serna, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo V. Benitez Nemesio Arturo S. Yabut, et al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al. Roberto Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jose S. Antonio Gaudencio Mapalo vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Sampaguita Garments Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission et. al. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Juan Oclarit, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ruben E. Ilaoa, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rolando B. Verchez, et al. Quintin F. Felizardo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eugenio Resuma, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Rodolfo M. Bellaflor, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Cedon Moises S. Bentulan vs. Manuel P. Dumatol Marcelino C. Libanan vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. Jose C. Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ma. Paz Fernandez Krohn vs. Court of Appeals Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Erlinda B. Causapin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rhodora M. Sulit People of the Philippines vs. Christian P. Sandagon Joselita Salita vs. Hon. Delilah Magtolis, et al. Rosario G. Jimenez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. University Physicians Services, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Romeo A. Gabas, et al. Andres Medilo, et al. vs. Manuel A. Asodisen, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Ompad, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Sgt. Felix Padilla People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Sarellana People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Ibay Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Rodolfo Toledano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Ignacio Republic of the Philippines vs. Rosalio G. De La Rosa, et al. Irma C. Alfonso vs. Commission On Elections, et al. Teodoro Araos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Agustin Chu vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Eugenio Jurilla, et al. vs. Commission On Elections, et al. Ma. Theresa R. Alberto vs. Court of Appeals Edith Juinio Atienza vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Salud Teodoro Vda. De Perez vs. Zotico A. Tolete Zenaida M. Palma vs. Court of Appeals Antonio A. Gallardo vs. Sinforoso V. Tabamo, Jr. Biyaheros Mart Livelihood Association, Inc., vs. Benjamin L. Cabusao, Jr., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Elbert S. Amar, et al. Evelio B. Javier, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 111985 June 30, 1994
INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORP. and/or LORENZO TANGSOC,petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CONCORDIA DOS PUEBLOS and LOLITA SANCHEZ,respondents.
Patrick R. Battad for petitioner.
Estanislao Ebarle, Jr. for private respondents.
CRUZ,J.:
In the earlier case of Industrial Timber Corporation v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 83616,1this Court affirmed the finding of the NLRC that the petitioners are the employers of private respondents and remanded the case for a determination of the validity of the quitclaim allegedly signed by the latter.
In its resolution dated February 3, 1992,2the NLRC affirmedin totothe decision of Labor Arbiter Amado M. Solamo on February 26, 1987, ordering the petitioners to reinstate the private respondents (complainants therein) without loss of seniority rights and privileges, and to pay them back wages, ECOLA, 13th month pay, holiday pay, vacation and sick leave pay in the amount of P24,300 each, moral and exemplary damages of P10,000 each, and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.
In view of the lapse of time since the promulgation of the decision, the NLRC likewise directed the petitioners to pay the private respondents severance benefits equivalent to one month pay for every year of service computed from the date of their employment up to the promulgation of the resolution should reinstatement of the private respondents to their former position be no longer possible.3
This resolution became final and executory on March 9, 1992, and entry of judgment was made on March 25, 1992.
The private respondents meanwhile had filed on March 20, 1992, anex partemotion for issuance of a writ of execution with manifestation that from February 26, 1987, up to the present, they have not been reinstated and thus were entitled to back salaries for the said period and until actual reinstatement shall have been made.
Executive Labor Arbiter Benjamin E. Pelaez thereupon directed the Fiscal Examiner of the Arbitration Branch to compute the actual amount that the private respondents should receive. In a report dated March 22, 1992,4Fiscal Examiner Renrico N. Pacamo found that each of them was entitled to P175,964.84, representing three years back wages, ECOLA under Wage Order No. 6, 13th month pay, legal holiday pay, vacation and sick leave pay and other privileges under the collective bargaining agreement likewise for a period of three years. In addition, the private respondents should also be awarded moral and exemplary damages of P10,000 each and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award. In sum, the petitioners were held liable to the private respondents for the total amount of P387,122.65.
Both the petitioners and the private respondents filed their respective objections to this computation. Meanwhile, the Executive Labor Arbiter transferred the case to Labor Arbiter Leon P. Murillo, who thereafter issued an order dated November 19, 1992,5concurring with the computation of the Fiscal Examiner Pacamo.
The Commission, on appeal of the computation, only made a slight modification of the amount of the award and directed the petitioners to pay the private respondents the sum of P375,795.20.6The motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners through JRS-Butuan, a private letter-forwarding company, reached the NLRC a day late and was denied on August 31, 1993, mainly for tardiness.7
In this petition now before us, the NLRC is faulted with grave abuse of discretion for merely modifying the award of damages and denying the motion for reconsideration.
On the first issue, the petitioners submit that the NLRC decision of February 3, 1992, which affirmedin totothe order of Arbiter Solamo and remanded the case for immediate execution need not be recomputed because the monetary awards due the private respondents had already been determined and fixed in the said order. It is argued that to allow the decision of Arbiter Murillo to prevail and sizably increase the monetary award to the private respondents would in effect allow an arbiter to change a decision of the Commission that has become final and executory. Arbiter Murillo’s duty, it is stressed, is limited to the ministerial act of executing the NLRC decision.
We disagree.
It is true that after a judgment has become final and executory, it can no longer be modified or otherwise disturbed. However, this principle admits of exceptions, as where facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust and it therefore becomes necessary, "in the interest of justice, to direct its modification in order to harmonize the disposition with the prevailing circumstances."8
The general rule is indeed, that once a judgment becomes final and executory, said judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered or modified. That principle,however, admits of exceptions as in cases where, because of supervening events, it becomes imperative, in the higher interest of justice, to direct its modification in order to harmonize the disposition with the prevailing circumstances(Seavan Carrier Inc. vs. GTI Sportswear Corp., 137 SCRA 580)or whenever it is necessary to accomplish the aims of justice(Pascual vs. Tan, 85 Phil. 164; Central Textile Mills vs. United Textile Workers Union, 94 SCRA 883). In the case at bar, the modification of the judgment, rendered by the Labor Arbiter on
4 May 1993, is warranted by the fact that the Bank had been placed under liquidation thereby permanently foreclosing the possibility for the Bank to resume its business. Reinstatement of Galindez, as Cashier, therefore was rendered inappropriate considering the Bank’s eventual closure. (Emphasis supplied).9
Applying this exception to the case at bar, we note with approval the following observations of the Solicitor General:10
It may be true that the amount of backwages and other benefits due to the private respondents as recomputed, is not in harmony with the literal import of the dispositive portion of the decision subject of execution. However, sight must not be lost of the fact that at the time the recomputation was made in1992, five (5) years had already elapsed from the time the Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision on February 26,1987. Thus, a recomputation was necessary to arrive at a just and proper determination of the monetary awards due the private respondents.
Indeed, the back wages and other benefits awarded by Arbiter Solamo to each of the private respondents in the amount of P24,300.00 correspond merely to the period between their illegal dismissal on April 26, 1986, up to the time of the rendition of the decision on February 26, 1987. There is no dispute that from April 26, 1986, to this date, the private respondents have not been reinstated nor has payment of the monetary awards decreed by the NLRC been made to them.
A similar action was taken in the recent case ofSampaguita Garments Corporation v. NLRC,11where this Court upheld the nullification of a decision of the NLRC ordering the reinstatement of an employee after her conviction of the same offense of which she was absolved in the administrative case.
On the issue of the timeliness of the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, we find that the NLRC correctly applied the rule that where a pleading is filed by ordinary mail or by private messengerial service, it is deemed filed on the day it is actually received by the court, not on the day it was mailed or delivered to the messengerial service.
As this Court held inBenguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC:12
The established rule is that the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases, the date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading.
The 10th day for filing the motion for reconsideration was June 26, 1993, which fell on a Saturday. The last day for filing would have been the following business day, June 28, 1993, which was a Monday. The petitioners’ counsel claims he was able to deliver the pleading to JRS-Butuan on June 26, 1993, but the motion for reconsideration reached the Commission on June 29, 1993, or a day late.
At any rate, the respondent Commission noted that the motion contained no substantial matters to warrant the reconsideration sought and could have been denied just the same on that ground.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The resolutions of the respondent NLRC dated May 31, 1993, and August 31, 1993, are AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered.
Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
#Footnotes
1 169 SCRA 341, January 20, 1989.
2Citedin the Petition,Rollo, p. 9.
3Ibid., p. 10.
4 Petition, Annex D,Rollo, p. 35.
5Rollo, pp. 43-49.
6 Resolution, May 31, 1993,Rollo, pp. 26-29.
7 Resolution, August 31, 1993,Rollo, pp. 30-31.
8 Seavan Carrier, Inc. v. GTI Sportswear Corp., 137 SCRA 580; Lee v. Hon. de Guzman, 187 SCRA 276.
9 Galindez v. Rural Bank of Llanera, Inc., 175 SCRA 132, pp. 138-139, July 5, 1989.
10Ibid., p. 92.
11 G.R. No. 102406.
12 209 SCRA 55, May 18, 1992.