ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 112955 September 1, 1997 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. CRESENCIANO TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118620-21 September 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARITO DADLES

  • G.R. No. 117472 September 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO ECHEGARAY

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1355 September 4, 1997 - RENE UY GOLANGCO v. CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 121098 September 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ANTIDO

  • G.R. No. 121778 September 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AARON BIONAT

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-759 September 5, 1997 - EMILIANO VELUZ v. RAUL V. BABARAN

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1111 September 5, 1997 - VIRGILIO CAÑETE v. MARCELO B. RABOSA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1338 September 5, 1997 - FERNANDO S. DIZON v. LILIA C. LOPEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1388 September 5, 1997 - ELEAZAR B. GASPAR v. WILLIAM H. BAYHON

  • G.R. No. 95252 September 5, 1997 - LA VISTA ASSN., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97961 September 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY TALISIC

  • G.R. No. 104692 September 5, 1997 - KATIPUNAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA DAUNGAN v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106214 September 5, 1997 - TERESITA VILLALUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106858 September 5, 1997 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109250 September 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON LACERNA

  • G.R. No. 109583 September 5, 1997 - TRANS ACTION OVERSEAS CORP. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109977 September 5, 1997 - UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN v. MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110062 September 5, 1997 - AQUINAS SCHOOL v. BIENVENIDO S. MAGNAYE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111149 September 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111935 September 5, 1997 - HILARIO T. DE LOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112630 September 5, 1997 - CORAZON JAMER, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113216 September 5, 1997 - RHODORA M. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113388 September 5, 1997 - ANGELITA MANZANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115158 September 5, 1997 - EMILIA M. URACA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116781 September 5, 1997 - TOMAS LAO CONSTRUCTION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117733 September 5, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118002 September 5, 1997 - ULDARICO ESCOTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118075 September 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO CATANTAN

  • G.R. No. 118141 September 5, 1997 - LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA v. WILFRED L. PASCASIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119010 September 5, 1997 - PAZ T. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120138 September 5, 1997 - MANUEL A. TORRES, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120363 September 5, 1997 - CECILLEVILLE REALTY AND SERVICE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120790 September 5, 1997 - SPECIAL POLICE AND WATCHMEN ASSN., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122656 September 5, 1997 - SYLVIA S. TY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126594 September 5, 1997 - IMELDA R. MARCOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1387 September 10, 1997 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. SEGUNDO B. CATRAL

  • G.R. No. 122872 September 10, 1997 - PENDATUN SALIH v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116473 September 12, 1997 - WILFREDO R. CAMUA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121993 September 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON AGUNIAS

  • G.R. No. 123056 September 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUVY MARIBAO

  • G.R. No. 123915 September 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO REBOLTIADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126977 September 12, 1997 - ELVIRA B. NAZARENO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98137 September 15, 1997 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108294 September 15, 1997 - ANDRES RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120158-59 September 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELESEO CHENG

  • G.R. No. 124135 September 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANNY QUELIZA

  • G.R. No. 113025 September 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115338-39 September 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LANIE ORTIZ-MIYAKE

  • G.R. No. 116798 September 16, 1997 - DENIA C. BUTA v. MANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123782 September 16, 1997 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. JOSE S. BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118866-68 September 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DE LA CRUZ

  • Adm. Case No. 3961 September 18, 1997 - SALUD IMSON-SOUWEHA v. TEOPISTO A. RONDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1077 September 18, 1997 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1254 September 18, 1997 - ANONYMOUS v. ADELA A. GEVEROLA

  • G.R. No. 117576 September 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SANTIAGO JAMIRO

  • G.R. No. 117890 September 18, 1997 - PISON-ARCEO AGRICULTURAL AND DEV. CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126230 September 18, 1997 - CARMEN ARRIETA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126625 September 18, 1997 - KANLAON CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES CO., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116595 September 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS PALOMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126158 September 23, 1997 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 3773 September 24, 1997 - ANGELITA C. ORCINO v. JOSUE GASPAR

  • Adm. Case No. 4634 September 24, 1997 - JESUS CABARRUS, JR. v. JOSE ANTONIO S. BERNAS

  • G.R. No. 101747 September 24, 1997 - PERFECTA QUINTANILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116593 September 24, 1997 - PULP AND PAPER, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118130 September 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JURY MAGDAMIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120391 September 24, 1997 - SIMPLICIO AMPER v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117038 September 25, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124033 September 25, 1997 - ANTONIO T. KHO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124933 September 25, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JURRY ANDAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105997 September 26, 1997 - MARIO BELLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112702 & 113613 September 26, 1997 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119165 September 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BETONIO

  • G.R. No. 120507 September 26, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120550 September 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTOLIN HAYAHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129913 September 26, 1997 - DINDO C. RIOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83588 September 29, 1997 - ADORACION C. PANGILINAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107487 & 107902 September 29, 1997 - MANILA BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108947 September 29, 1997 - ROLANDO SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112074 September 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 117451 September 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTON BURGOS

  • G.R. No. 125183 September 29, 1997 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 112955   September 1, 1997 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. CRESENCIANO TRAJANO, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 112955. September 1, 1997.]

    ABOITIZ SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. HON. UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, CRESENCIANO TRAJANO and DIRECTOR BERNARDINO JULVE, Respondents.

    Rogelio B. de Guzman for Petitioner.

    Isaias P. Dicdican — Intervenor —Aboitiz.

    Solicitor General for public Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; RULE AUTHORIZING THE COURT TO MODIFY OR ALTER A JUDGMENT EVEN AFTER THE SAME HAS BECOME EXECUTORY, NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE AT BENCH. — We are of course well aware of the rule authorizing the court to modify or alter a judgment even after the same has become executory, whenever circumstances transpire rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. However, this rule, we must emphasize, applies only to cases where the facts or circumstances authorizing such modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final and executory. It does not apply in this case wherein public respondent’s basis for the modification of the final and executory judgment was clearly the very same evidence which ASC, despite having been given ample opportunity, failed to adduce during the hearing on the merits of the case.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCEPT FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERRORS OR THE MAKING OF NUNC PRO TUNC ENTRIES WHICH CAUSES NO PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY OR WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS VOID, AFTER THE JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY, THE SAME CAN NEITHER BE AMENDED NOR ALTERED. — We thus reiterate our settled rule that, except for correction of clerical errors or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which causes no prejudice to any party or where the judgment is void, after the judgment has become final and executory, the same can neither be amended nor altered even if the purpose is to correct a perceived conclusion of fact or of law. This is true regardless of whether the modification is to be made by the magistrate that rendered the judgment, or by the appellate magistrate that reviewed the same. Indeed, all litigation must come to an end however unjust the result of error may appear, Otherwise, litigation would even be more intolerable than the wrong or injustice it is designed to correct.


    D E C I S I O N


    FRANCISCO, J.:


    Sometime in 1987, petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Employees Association filed a complaint for non-compliance with the mandated minimum wage under P.D. Nos. 1713, 1 1751, 2 and Wage Order Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 against Aboitiz Shipping Corporation (ASC) before the National Capital Region (NCR) Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Upon receipt of the complaint, an inspection of the ASC’s premises and employment records was accordingly conducted by the NCR Regional Director 3 who, after an evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties, issued an order the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation is hereby Ordered to pay the herein listed complainants the total amount of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT and 00/100 PESOS (P1,350,828.00) representing underpayment of daily allowance of TWO (P2.00) pesos per day reckoned from 16 February 1982 to 15 February 1985.

    "FURTHER, the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation is hereby Ordered to pay each and every one of its employees the deficiency in allowance of TWO (P2.00) Pesos per day from 16 February 1985 onward until this Order is fully complied with." 4

    ASC interposed an appeal, which the Secretary of Labor dismissed. ASC’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

    On petition for certiorari, we affirmed 5 the foregoing order with modification, as we excluded Mr. Elizardo Manuel 6 from the list of complainants entitled to the monetary award. Dissatisfied, ASC filed a motion for reconsideration raising both jurisdictional and factual issues. We denied with finality the said motion in our Resolution promulgated on July 25, 1991. 7

    On August 6, 1991, petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution before the Regional Director which granted the motion. 8 However, on appeal by ASC, public respondent Secretary of Labor "set aside" the order of execution and decreed the creation of a Special Committee that will compute the exact amount of ASC’s liability. 9 The Committee then proceeded to re-evaluate the records of the case, together with ASC’s newly adduced evidence consisting of company payrolls. 10 Thereafter, it submitted a Report reducing the original award from P1,350,828.00 to P209,183.42, which public respondent approved. 11 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that an order of execution is not appealable and that public respondent has no jurisdiction to reduce the Regional Director’s award, it being already final and executory. The motion, however, was denied. 12

    In this petition, petitioner insists that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the final and executory decision of the Regional Director awarding petitioner the sum of P1,350,828.00.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    The petition is impressed with merit.

    Public respondent justified the reduction of the Regional Director’s award on the basis of the Special Committee’s findings that, "except for a minimal adjustment due to the late implementation of some of the Wage Orders, ASC has complied with P.D. 1678, 13 P.D. 1751, and Wage Order Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6." 14 We cannot, however, approve the said findings considering that ASC’s liability to petitioner under the aforementioned laws and wage orders has long been settled by no less than this Court in Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Hon. Dionisio de la Serna, et. al., 15 where we affirmed the Regional Director’s order awarding the sum of P1,350,828.00 to herein petitioner. Thus, as correctly held by the Regional Director, the aforementioned judgment having been already final and executory, the amount adjudged therein should be the subject of execution. 16

    We are of course well aware of the rule authorizing the court to modify or alter a judgment even after the same has become executory, whenever circumstances transpire rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. 17 However, this rule, we must emphasize, applies only to cases where the facts or circumstances authorizing such modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final and executory. It does not apply in this case wherein public respondent’s basis for the modification of the final and executory judgment was clearly the very same evidence which ASC, despite having been given ample opportunity, failed to adduce during the hearing on the merits of the case.

    We thus reiterate our settled rule that, except for correction of clerical errors 18 or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which causes no prejudice to any party 19 or where the judgment is void, after the judgment has become final and executory, the same can neither be amended nor altered 20 even if the purpose is to correct a perceived conclusion of fact or of law. This is true regardless of whether the modification is to be made by the magistrate that rendered the judgment, or by the appellate magistrate that reviewed the same. Indeed, all litigation must come to an end however unjust the result of error may appear. Otherwise, litigation would even be more intolerable than the wrong or injustice it is designed to correct. 21

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of public respondent Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, dated April 23, 1993 and September 22, 1993, respectively, are SET ASIDE, and the RESOLUTION of Regional Director Bernardino B. Julve, dated January 17, 1992, ordering the issuance of an alias writ of execution is REINSTATED.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    It is so ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM DAILY WAGE RATES AND FOR ADDITIONAL MANDATORY LIVING ALLOWANCES.

    2. INCREASING THE STATUTORY DAILY MINIMUM WAGE AT ALL LEVELS BY P4.00 AFTER INTEGRATING THE MANDATORY LIVING ALLOWANCES UNDER P.D. 525 AND 1123 INTO THE BASIC PAY OF ALL COVERED WORKERS.

    3. Hon. Luna C. Piezas.

    4. Rollo, p. 7.

    5. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Dela Serna, 184 SCRA 551 (1990).

    6. He entered into Compromise Agreement with Aboitiz Shipping Corporation stipulating that the latter will pay him P70,000.00 in full settlement of all his monetary claims.

    7. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Dela Serna, 199 SCRA 568 (1991).

    8. Annex "A" ; Resolution dated January 17, 1992, signed by the Regional Director Bernardino B. Julve; Rollo, pp. 16-18.

    9. Annex "B", Order dated April 21, 1992 signed by Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano; Rollo, pp. 19-24.

    10. Rollo, p. 37.

    11. Annex "C", Order dated April 23, 1993, signed by Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano; Rollo, pp. 26-41.

    12. Annex "D", Order signed by Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano; Rollo, pp. 42-49.

    13. PROVIDING FOR A PROVISIONAL MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIVING ALLOWANCE OF P2.00 A DAY FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

    14. Rollo, p. 46.

    15. G.R. No. 88538, April 25, 1990.

    16. See Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Fortun, 169 SCRA 81 (1989), and Cunanan v. Cruz, 167 SCRA 674 (1988).

    17. Cabral v. Adil, 135 SCRA 354 (1985); Abellana v. Dosdos, 13 SCRA 244 (1965); Ocampo v. Sanchez, et. al., 97 Phil. 472; De la Costa v. Cleofas, 67 Phil. 686; Flor Mata v. Lichauco and Salinas, 16 Phil. 809; Espiritu v. Crossfield and Guash, 14 Phil. 588.

    18. Maramba v. Lozano, 20 Phil. 474; Ablaza v. Sycip and Central Surety and Insurance Co. Inc., 110 Phil. 4; Veluz v. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, 42 Phil. 557.

    19. Manning International Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 195 SCRA 155, 161 (1991) citing Limchauco v. Tan Pho, 5 Phil. 862, quoting Wilmerding v. Corbin Banking Co., 28 South. 640, 641; 126 Ala. 268.

    20. Yu v. National Labor Relations Commission, 245 SCRA 134 (1995); First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Company, Inc. v. Hernando, 199 SCRA 796 (1991); Torno v. IAC, 166 SCRA 742 (1988); Heirs of Remigio Tan v. IAC, 163 SCRA 752 (1988); Lonzame v. Amores, 134 SCRA 386 (1985); Heirs of Patriaca v. CA, 124 SCRA 420 (1983); Nieva v. Manila Banking Corporation, 124 SCRA 453 (1983).

    21. Reinsurance Company v. CA, 198 SCRA 19 (1991).

    G.R. No. 112955   September 1, 1997 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. CRESENCIANO TRAJANO, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED