C.I.C.M. vs. REYES

C.I.C.M MISSION SEMINARIES (MARYHURST, MARYHEIGHTS, MARYSHORE AND MARYHILL) SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, INC., FR. ROMEO NIMEZ, CICM, Petitioners, Vs. MARIA VERONICA C. REYES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 220506

January 18, 2017

FACTS:

This controversy is an offshoot of an illegal dismissal case filed by the respondent against the petitioners. In its June 16, 2008 Decision, the Labor Arbiter recognized respondents right to receive from the petitioners backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Thus, it ordered the petitioners to pay respondent the aggregate amount of P286, 670.58. The LA decision was affirmed by the NLRC, by the CA and by the SC in G.R. No. 200490.

The Decision became final and executory on October 4, 2012, as evidenced by the Entry of Judgment. Consequently, respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. The petitioners opposed and moved for the issuance of a certificate of satisfaction of judgment, alleging that their obligation had been satisfied by the release of the cash bond in the amount of P272, 337.05 to respondent.

In its July 10, 2014 Order, the LA ruled that the cash bond posted by the petitioners was insufficient to satisfy their obligation. LA ordered them to award respondent a total amount of P1, 847, 088.89, from this amount should be deducted the amount received at P272, 337.05.  Thus, the additional backwages and separation pay due is P1, 575, 751.84.

The petitioners elevated an appeal before NLRC, but the LA ruling was affirmed.

A petition for certiorari was filed with the CA, but the said petition was dismissed.

ISSUES:

1. What should be the basis for the computation of the backwages and separation pay of an illegally dismissed employee in a case where reinstatement was not ordered?
2. Whether or not he CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion when the NLRC affirmed the LA’s findings.
3. Whether or not the computation made by the LA in the main case could no longer be disturbed following the doctrine of immutability of judgment.

HELD:

1. In the event the aspect of reinstatement is disputed, backwages, including separation pay, shall be computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering the separation pay. In Gaco v. NLRC, it was ruled that with respect to the payment of backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee, the period shall be reckoned from the time compensation was withheld up to the finality of this Court’s decision.

2. No. Grave abuse of discretion, which has been defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, requires proof that the CA committed errors such that its decision was not made in contemplation of law. The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts. In the case at bar, the petitioners failed to carry out such burden.

3. The court disagrees with the petitioners’ assertion that a recomputation would violate the doctrine of immutability of judgment. It has been settled that no essential change is made by a recomputation 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 thereof. The recomputation of the awards stemming from illegal dismissal case does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of the monetary consequences of the dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on Febuary 3, 2016 is hereby LIFTED.