Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82090:56128&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:26:59+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013 - DARIO NACAR, Petitioner, v. GALLERY FRAMES AND/OR FELIPE BORDEY, JR., Respondents.
DARIO NACAR, Petitioner, v. GALLERY FRAMES AND/OR FELIPE BORDEY, JR., Respondents.
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated September 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 98591, and the Resolution2 dated October 9, 2009 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The factual antecedents are undisputed.
Petitioner Dario Nacar filed a complaint for constructive dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against respondents Gallery Frames (GF) and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr., docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 01-00519-97.
a) 1/24/97 to 2/5/98 = 12.36 mos.
All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
On December 2, 2002, a Writ of Execution13 was issued by the Labor Arbiter ordering the Sheriff to collect from respondents the total amount of P471,320.31. Respondents filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution, arguing, among other things, that since the Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay of P62,986.56 and limited backwages of P95,933.36, no more recomputation is required to be made of the said awards. They claimed that after the decision becomes final and executory, the same cannot be altered or amended anymore.14 On January 13, 2003, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order15 denying the motion. Thus, an Alias Writ of Execution16 was issued on January 14, 2003.
Respondents again appealed before the NLRC, which on June 30, 2003 issued a Resolution17 granting the appeal in favor of the respondents and ordered the recomputation of the judgment award.
The records of the case were again forwarded to the Computation and Examination Unit for recomputation, where the judgment award of petitioner was reassessed to be in the total amount of only P147,560.19.
Petitioner then moved that a writ of execution be issued ordering respondents to pay him the original amount as determined by the Labor Arbiter in his Decision dated October 15, 1998, pending the final computation of his backwages and separation pay.
On January 14, 2003, the Labor Arbiter issued an Alias Writ of Execution to satisfy the judgment award that was due to petitioner in the amount of P147,560.19, which petitioner eventually received.
On May 10, 2005, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order20 granting the motion, but only up to the amount of P11,459.73. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that it is the October 15, 1998 Decision that should be enforced considering that it was the one that became final and executory. However, the Labor Arbiter reasoned that since the decision states that the separation pay and backwages are computed only up to the promulgation of the said decision, it is the amount of P158,919.92 that should be executed. Thus, since petitioner already received P147,560.19, he is only entitled to the balance of P11,459.73.
Petitioner then appealed before the NLRC,21 which appeal was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution22 dated September 27, 2006. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was likewise denied in the Resolution23 dated January 31, 2007.
Aggrieved, petitioner then sought recourse before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 98591.
On September 23, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision24 denying the petition. The CA opined that since petitioner no longer appealed the October 15, 1998 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, which already became final and executory, a belated correction thereof is no longer allowed. The CA stated that there is nothing left to be done except to enforce the said judgment. Consequently, it can no longer be modified in any respect, except to correct clerical errors or mistakes.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution25 dated October 9, 2009.
Petitioner argues that notwithstanding the fact that there was a computation of backwages in the Labor Arbiter’s decision, the same is not final until reinstatement is made or until finality of the decision, in case of an award of separation pay. Petitioner maintains that considering that the October 15, 1998 decision of the Labor Arbiter did not become final and executory until the April 17, 2002 Resolution of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 151332 was entered in the Book of Entries on May 27, 2002, the reckoning point for the computation of the backwages and separation pay should be on May 27, 2002 and not when the decision of the Labor Arbiter was rendered on October 15, 1998. Further, petitioner posits that he is also entitled to the payment of interest from the finality of the decision until full payment by the respondents.
On their part, respondents assert that since only separation pay and limited backwages were awarded to petitioner by the October 15, 1998 decision of the Labor Arbiter, no more recomputation is required to be made of said awards. Respondents insist that since the decision clearly stated that the separation pay and backwages are “computed only up to [the] promulgation of this decision,” and considering that petitioner no longer appealed the decision, petitioner is only entitled to the award as computed by the Labor Arbiter in the total amount of P158,919.92. Respondents added that it was only during the execution proceedings that the petitioner questioned the award, long after the decision had become final and executory. Respondents contend that to allow the further recomputation of the backwages to be awarded to petitioner at this point of the proceedings would substantially vary the decision of the Labor Arbiter as it violates the rule on immutability of judgments.
In concrete terms, the question is whether a re-computation in the course of execution of the labor arbiter's original computation of the awards made, pegged as of the time the decision was rendered and confirmed with modification by a final CA decision, is legally proper. The question is posed, given that the petitioner did not immediately pay the awards stated in the original labor arbiter's decision; it delayed payment because it continued with the litigation until final judgment at the CA level.
A source of misunderstanding in implementing the final decision in this case proceeds from the way the original labor arbiter framed his decision. The decision consists essentially of two parts.
The first is that part of the decision that cannot now be disputed because it has been confirmed with finality. This 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. On its face, the computation the labor arbiter made shows that it was time-bound as can be seen from the figures used in the computation. This part, being merely a computation of what the first part of the decision established and declared, can, by its nature, be re-computed. This is the part, too, that the petitioner now posits should no longer be re-computed because the computation is already in the labor arbiter's decision that the CA had affirmed. The public and private respondents, on the other hand, posit that a re-computation is necessary because the relief in an illegal dismissal decision goes all the way up to reinstatement if reinstatement is to be made, or up to the finality of the decision, if separation pay is to be given in lieu reinstatement.
[T]he Labor Arbiter of origin, in cases involving monetary awards and at all events, as far as practicable, shall embody in any such decision or order the detailed and full amount awarded.
Clearly implied from this original computation is its currency up to the finality of the labor arbiter's decision. As we noted above, this implication is apparent from the terms of the computation itself, and no question would have arisen had the parties terminated the case and implemented the decision at that point.
However, the petitioner disagreed with the labor arbiter's findings on all counts - i.e., on the finding of illegality as well as on all the consequent awards made. Hence, the petitioner appealed the case to the NLRC which, in turn, affirmed the labor arbiter's decision. By law, the NLRC decision is final, reviewable only by the CA on jurisdictional grounds.
The petitioner appropriately sought to nullify the NLRC decision on jurisdictional grounds through a timely filed Rule 65 petition for certiorari. The CA decision, finding that NLRC exceeded its authority in affirming the payment of 13th month pay and indemnity, lapsed to finality and was subsequently returned to the labor arbiter of origin for execution.
It was at this point that the present case arose. Focusing on the core illegal dismissal portion of the original labor arbiter's decision, the implementing labor arbiter ordered the award re-computed; he apparently read the figures originally ordered to be paid to be the computation due had the case been terminated and implemented at the labor arbiter's level. Thus, the labor arbiter re-computed the award to include the separation pay and the backwages due up to the finality of the CA decision that fully terminated the case on the merits. Unfortunately, the labor arbiter's approved computation went beyond the finality of the CA decision (July 29, 2003) and included as well the payment for awards the final CA decision had deleted - specifically, the proportionate 13th month pay and the indemnity awards. Hence, the CA issued the decision now questioned in the present petition.
Section 1. The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum.
Section 2. In view of the above, Subsection X305.136 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and Sections 4305Q.1,37 4305S.338 and 4303P.139 of the Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions are hereby amended accordingly.
This Circular shall take effect on 1 July 2013.
Thus, from the foregoing, in the absence of an express stipulation as to the rate of interest that would govern the parties, the rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments shall no longer be twelve percent (12%) per annum - as reflected in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines40 and Subsection X305.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and Sections 4305Q.1, 4305S.3 and 4303P.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions, before its amendment by BSP-MB Circular No. 799 - but will now be six percent (6%) per annum effective July 1, 2013. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the new rate could only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. Consequently, the twelve percent (12%) per annum legal interest shall apply only until June 30, 2013. Come July 1, 2013 the new rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be the prevailing rate of interest when applicable.
Nonetheless, with regard to those judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, 2013, said judgments shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be implemented applying the rate of interest fixed therein.
And, in addition to the above, judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, 2013, shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be implemented applying the rate of interest fixed therein.
(3) interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the total monetary awards, computed from May 27, 2002 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until their full satisfaction.
The Labor Arbiter is hereby ORDERED to make another recomputation of the total monetary benefits awarded and due to petitioner in accordance with this Decision.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; rollo, pp. 33-48.
6 Resolution dated July 24, 2000, id. at 94-96.
27 G.R. No. 172149, February 8, 2010, 612 SCRA 10.
28Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), supra, at 21-23.
32 G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78.
33Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 95-97. (Citations omitted; italics in the original).
34 SECTION 2. The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall continue to be twelve percent (12%) per annum.
35 Rate of interest in the absence of stipulation; Dated June 21, 2013.
§ 4305Q.1 (2008 - 4307Q.6) Rate of interest in the absence of stipulation. The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credit and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum.
§ 4305S.3 Interest in the absence of contract. In the absence of express contract, the rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credit and the rate allowed in judgment shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum.
40Supra note 32, at 95-97.
41 G.R. No. 192986, January 15, 2013, 688 SCRA 530, 547.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

§ 4305

§ 4305