C-E Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private Respondent Gilbert Sumcad filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against Petitioner C-E Construction Corporation, alleging he was a regular employee dismissed without cause. Petitioner claimed Sumcad was a project employee whose services were fully paid upon project completion, citing Policy Instruction No. 20. Procedural History: Labor Arbiter Potenciano S. Canizares Jr. ruled in favor of Sumcad. The NLRC modified this, ordering back wages for one year but setting aside other monetary awards. An Entry of Judgment declared the NLRC Resolution final and executory. Petitioner's Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court was dismissed. The case was remanded to LA Canizares, who inhibited himself, and was re-raffled to LA Manuel M. Manansala. Petitioner requested a hearing to present evidence of Sumcad's earnings elsewhere, which LA Manansala denied, ordering reinstatement and payment of back wages. The NLRC, on appeal, deleted the award of additional back wages. The Court of Appeals (CA) declared the LA's Order and the NLRC's subsequent Decision and Resolution null and void for want of jurisdiction, ordering the issuance of a writ of execution for reinstatement and back wages. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the CA Decision and Resolution, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of execution without a hearing and without allowing petitioner to present evidence of Sumcad's earnings elsewhere, and in awarding "additional backwages" contrary to the decision being executed. Petitioner also questioned the retroactive application of the ruling in Osmalik Bustamante v. NLRC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC and Labor Arbiter by issuing a writ of execution without a hearing and without giving petitioner the opportunity to present evidence of private respondent’s earnings elsewhere, and awarded ‘additional backwages’ which is in substantial variance to the decision being executed. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious errors in applying retroactively the ruling in Osmalik Bustamante v. NLRC and whether Sumcad was a project employee.
Ruling
The Petition is denied, and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of modifying a final and executory decision: The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that once a decision becomes final and executory, it can no longer be modified or amended, except for clerical errors. The Labor Arbiter, in ordering reinstatement and payment of back wages, exceeded his authority by altering the NLRC's April 20, 1994 Decision, which had already become final and executory. The NLRC's subsequent decision, which deleted the additional back wages, was also voided by the CA because it attempted to modify a final judgment. The CA correctly reverted to the original NLRC Decision and ordered its execution. Petitioner's request to present evidence of the private respondent's earnings elsewhere was denied because such evidence should have been presented during the merits of the case, not after the judgment had become final and executory. The Court emphasized that under Republic Act No. 6715, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to full back wages without diminution by earnings derived elsewhere. On the application of Bustamante v. NLRC and the award of full back wages, and the nature of Sumcad's employment: The Court affirmed the CA's application of the ruling in Bustamante v. NLRC, which held that illegally dismissed employees are entitled to full back wages without diminution from earnings derived elsewhere. This ruling aligns with the legislative intent of Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, which mandates the award of full back wages from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of reinstatement. The Court clarified that the Bustamante ruling effectively reversed earlier cases that limited back wages to three years or allowed deductions for other earnings. The petitioner's argument that Sumcad was a project employee was rejected, as the petitioner failed to file termination reports with the DOLE for each project completion, thus demonstrating that Sumcad was a regular employee. The cessation of construction activities at the end of a project was considered a foreseeable suspension of work, not a severance of employment.
Main Doctrine
Once a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) becomes final and executory, it can no longer be modified or amended, except for clerical errors. A party cannot present new evidence to show that a final judgment is erroneous.