C-E Construction Corp. v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner C-E Construction Corporation (petitioner) employed respondent Raymundo Hernandez as an electrician and carpenter on January 17, 1996, for a project whose employment contract stipulated that Hernandez's employment was co-terminus with the project. On December 17, 1996, petitioner dismissed Hernandez, alleging completion of the initial phase of the project. Hernandez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement, backwages, moral damages, and attorney's fees. The NLRC partially reversed this, deleting moral damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's petition for certiorari, finding no evidence of project completion and noting the lack of notice and hearing. This Court denied petitioner's petition for review and subsequent motion for reconsideration, rendering the decision final and executory on February 9, 2001. The Petition: Hernandez filed an omnibus motion for re-computation and issuance of a writ of execution. The Labor Arbiter issued an order awarding backwages, which petitioner appealed to the NLRC. Petitioner argued that potential earnings during the case pendency should be deducted, that it was not furnished a writ of execution, and that backwages should only cover the project's duration. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's order. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's subsequent petition for certiorari, deeming the computation of backwages a factual issue not proper for certiorari and finding no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner then filed the instant petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the backwages awarded to Hernandez should only cover the unexpired portion of the project he was engaged in, considering petitioner's assertion that he was a project employee. Whether the Labor Arbiter's order awarding backwages was valid despite petitioner's claim of not being furnished a writ of execution and its arguments on the computation of backwages.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 28, 2006, and its Resolution dated October 24, 2007, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether backwages should only cover the unexpired portion of the project: The Court held that the issue of whether Hernandez was a regular or project employee had been settled by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, both of whom ruled that Hernandez was a regular employee entitled to security of tenure. The Labor Arbiter found that Hernandez became a regular employee despite signing a project employment contract, and the NLRC considered him a work pool worker with continuous and ongoing employment. While the Court of Appeals mentioned Hernandez as a project employee in its discussion, this was considered an obiter dictum as it was not part of the dispositive portion. The enforceable writ of execution pertains to the dispositive portion of the decision, which affirmed his status as a regular employee. On the validity of the Labor Arbiter's order awarding backwages: The Court emphasized that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it should not be denied to the prevailing party by any subterfuge. Final and executory judgments cannot be amended or altered, except for clerical errors. Trial and execution proceedings are considered part of the same action. The writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter was found to be consistent with the final decision in the case, which had attained finality and could no longer be reviewed or modified by any court. Therefore, the order of execution was beyond challenge.
Main Doctrine
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be amended or altered, and the prevailing party is entitled to the fruits of the judgment. The dispositive portion of the decision, as affirmed by higher courts, is what is enforceable.