SECOND
DIVISION
ZENAIDA ASUNCION,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 109311
June
17,
1997
-versus-
HON.
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION,
SECOND DIVISION,
PRUDENCION AGBUYA,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
ROMERO, J.:
This petition for certiorari
seeks the reversal of the January 21, 1993 decision of the National
Labor
Relations Commission [NLRC] in NLRC Case No. 003035-92, which affirmed
in toto the order of Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera dated February 25,
1992
and the resolution dated March 2, 1993 denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration thereof.
Private respondent Prudencio
Agbuya was employed as designer by ABC Mirror Tower and Aluminum Supply
[ABC] allegedly run by petitioner Asuncion as general manager. ABC was
compelled to retrench some of its employees, including respondent, due
to serious business reversal, prompting the latter to file against
petitioner
and ABC a complaint for illegal dismissal, violation of P. D. No. 525,
non-payment of wages and violation of R.A. No. 6640. On March 11, 1991,
Labor Arbiter de Vera rendered a decision which reads:
WHEREFORE, all the
foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered
ordering
the respondents to reinstate the complainant to his former position as
designer with all the rights, benefits and privileges appertaining
thereto,
plus backwages in the total sum of P73,892.00 without deduction or
qualification.
Further, the respondents are ordered to pay complainant the latter's
salary
differential amounting to P400.00.
All other claims of
the complainant are dismissed for lack of merit.[1]
After this decision became
final and executory due to the failure of petitioner to file an appeal
within the reglementary period, respondent filed a motion for the
issuance
of a writ of execution, which was accordingly granted.
After levy but before
the scheduled auction sale, petitioner filed a motion to quash the
writ,
alleging that the items levied upon were her own properties, and that
she
was "not the owner or even part-owner" of ABC, and therefore, cannot be
held personally liable for the judgment award.[2]
In his Order dated February
25, 1992, Labor Arbiter de Vera dismissed the motion to quash and the
third-party
claim and accordingly declared petitioner liable to the extent of
one-half
of the judgment award or P36,946.00. It directed Sheriff Rene
Masilungan
to continue with the execution process. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed
said
order in toto. Hence, this petition.cralaw:red
The petition must be
dismissed.cralaw:red
Well-settled is the
principle that perfection of an appeal within the statutory or
reglementary
period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to do
so renders the questioned decision final and executory that deprives
the
appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less
to
entertain the appeal.[3]
In the case at bar,
it is admitted that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was received by
private
respondent' s counsel on April 26, 1991,[4]
making the last day for perfecting the appeal May 6, 1991. The decision
became final and executory upon failure of petitioner to appeal within
the ten-day period. Private respondent, therefore, as the prevailing
party,
is entitled as a matter of right to the execution of the final and
executory
judgment in his favor.cralaw:red
This Court has held
that once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case
whether
or not said decision is erroneous.[5]
Having been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction acting within
its authority, the judgment may no longer be altered even at the risk
of
legal infirmities and errors it may contain, which cannot be corrected
by certiorari.[6]
Petitioner alleges that
the judgment was rendered without due process of law and is, therefore,
null and void because she was not properly summoned by the NLRC. The
records
sufficiently contradict this assertion. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
correctly found that, not only was petitioner served with summons but
she
also filed an answer to the complaint in the form of a position paper
wherein
her inclusion as a respondent was never disputed. "As a matter of fact,
some notices were even addressed to her with the company as the
forwarding
addressee.[7]
She adds that "even
assuming, gratia argumenti, that summons was served upon the person of
herein petitioner, still the decision is without factual and legal
foundation."
If petitioner, however, regarded the decision as void for lack of legal
basis, then the proper remedy would have been to appeal said judgment
to
the NLRC. Having failed in this respect, the assailed decision stands.cralaw:red
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned order dated February
25,
1992, and the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated
January 21, 1993, are accordingly AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Puno, Mendoza
and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 18.
[2]
Rollo, p. 26.
[3]
Garcia v. Echiverri, 132 SCRA 631 [1984].
[4]
Rollo, p. 24.
[5]
Enriquez v. Court of Appeals, 202 SCRA 487 [1991].
[6]
San Juan v. Cuento, 160 SCRA 277 [1988].
[7]
Rollo, p. 57. |