Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents filed complaints against petitioners for illegal dismissal, praying for reinstatement with backwages and attorney's fees. Labor Arbiter Cresencio J. Ramos rendered a decision on July 31, 1992, ordering petitioners to pay backwages, refund for illegal deduction, attorney's fees, and to reinstate complainants immediately. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, and a writ of execution for reinstatement was issued. The Sheriff's Return indicated that private respondents were reinstated on October 12, 1992. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision on May 12, 1993. Petitioners filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 110984), which was dismissed on February 21, 1994, making the July 31, 1992 decision final and executory. Private respondents received all monetary awards. Subsequently, private respondents moved for reinstatement and payment of withheld wages, or separation pay if reinstatement was not feasible. Procedural History: Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac issued an order on October 27, 1994, granting separation pay and withheld wages. Petitioners moved for reconsideration. The NLRC, treating the motion as an appeal, issued a decision on June 5, 1995, modifying the Labor Arbiter's order by deleting the award for withheld wages but retaining the award for separation pay. Petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration to set aside the award of separation pay. The Petition: The present petition for certiorari seeks to annul the NLRC's decision dated June 5, 1995, and the Labor Arbiter's order dated October 27, 1994, specifically questioning the award of separation pay which was not included in the original final and executory decision.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondents are entitled to separation pay when such was not decreed in the original decision dated July 31, 1992, which had become final and executory. Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC could amend and expand a final and executory decision by granting separation pay, and the implications of the reinstatement and waiver issue.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The award of separation pay to private respondents is declared null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to separation pay: The Court ruled that private respondents are not entitled to separation pay because it was not decreed in the original decision dated July 31, 1992, which had become final and executory. A writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the judgment. The execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award. Therefore, the award of separation pay, not having been decreed in the original decision, is null and void. On the authority of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC to amend a final decision, and the issue of reinstatement and waiver: The Court held that the dispositive portion of a final and executory decision cannot be amended or expanded by a later order of another Labor Arbiter or the NLRC. The original decision of July 31, 1992, which ordered reinstatement with backwages and attorney's fees, became final and executory after the dismissal of the certiorari petition in G.R. No. 110984. Any subsequent order attempting to grant separation pay, which was not part of the original award, is considered void for being in excess of the judgment. The Court noted that the NLRC found that private respondents were actually reinstated on October 12, 1992, but failed to report for work due to their own fault. The failure of the private respondents to report for work constituted a waiver of their right to actual reinstatement. The Court found the NLRC's conclusion to grant separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to be erroneous, as it was not supported by the original judgment.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the judgment; an award not decreed in the original decision is null and void.