Schering Employees' Labor Union v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the interpretation and implementation of a retirement plan for employees of Schering-Plough Corporation (SPC), represented by the Schering Employees' Labor Union (SELU). The retirement plan, effective March 20, 1989, provided benefits based on a salary credit formula and a vesting schedule, with percentages of accrued retirement benefits increasing with years of service. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into on June 13, 1990, stipulated that the company and the union would jointly improve the retirement plan within nine months. 2. Procedural History: On May 25, 1992, SELU filed a complaint against SPC and its president, Epitacio Titong, alleging a violation of the CBA provision regarding the improvement of the retirement plan. On July 13, 1992, SELU filed a motion to withdraw the complaint, stating that the parties had agreed to implement an improved plan effective July 16, 1992, providing for higher percentages per year of service without vesting schedules. The Labor Arbiter granted this motion and dismissed the case on July 14, 1992. Subsequently, SPC filed a motion to amend the order, seeking to remove the phrase "without vesting schedules," asserting they had not agreed to eliminate the vesting schedules. The Labor Arbiter granted this amendment on November 10, 1992. SELU appealed this amendatory order to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which dismissed the appeal on February 21, 1994, and denied SELU's motion for reconsideration on October 12, 1994. 3. The Petition: This special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul the NLRC's resolutions. Petitioner SELU argues that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the Labor Arbiter's order amending a final and executory order, and that it was deprived of procedural due process when the NLRC accepted the private respondents' unilateral representation regarding the vesting schedules. SELU contends that the July 14, 1992 order, being a dismissal, was final and executory and could not be amended. Private respondents argue that the issue of vesting schedules became moot and academic with a subsequent CBA in 1993 and that the July 14, 1992 order was not an adjudication on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the Labor Arbiter's Order amending a final and executory Order. Whether petitioner was deprived of procedural due process when the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the unilateral representation of the private respondents that the vesting schedule in the Retirement Plan is maintained.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The issue of "vesting schedules" has become moot and academic. However, the Court finds that the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's amendatory order dated November 10, 1992, and the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction in issuing it, as the Order dated July 14, 1992, had become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the Labor Arbiter's Order amending a final and executory Order: The Court held that the Labor Arbiter's Order dated July 14, 1992, which dismissed the complaint, was a final and executory order. The finality of a judgment or order does not necessitate an adjudication on the merits; an order that dismisses an action terminates the litigation and leaves nothing further for the court to do. Article 223 of the Labor Code mandates that decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed within ten (10) calendar days. In this case, the private respondents filed their motion to amend the order thirteen days after receipt, which was beyond the reglementary period, rendering the order final and executory. Once an order becomes final and executory, it is removed from the power and jurisdiction of the court that rendered it to further alter or amend it. The public respondent NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment of a final and executory order, as this circumvents the statutory ten-day period for appeal and the prohibition against motions for reconsideration of a Labor Arbiter's order. On the issue of whether petitioner was deprived of procedural due process: While the Court found merit in the petitioner's submission regarding the finality of the Labor Arbiter's Order dated July 14, 1992, it also agreed with the private respondents that the question on "vesting schedules" had become moot and academic. This mootness arose because the same "vesting schedules" were carried over and agreed upon in the new CBA entered into by petitioner SELU and SPC on August 16, 1993. Despite the procedural infirmity in amending the final order, the Court proceeded to settle the principal issue of grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the Labor Arbiter's Order of July 14, 1992, was issued in reaction to the motion to withdraw and, while it quoted a disputed paragraph, it did not adjudicate on its validity or enforceability. Therefore, the subsequent amendment was an attempt to correct an order that did not resolve the contested clause, but this correction was made after the order had become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
An order of dismissal, even if not an adjudication on the merits, is a final and executory order that terminates the litigation and cannot be amended or altered by the Labor Arbiter after the reglementary period for appeal has lapsed.