THIRD
DIVISION
ABOITIZ
SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 112955
September 1, 1997
-versus-
HON.
UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
CRESENCIANO TRAJANO and DIRECTOR
BERNARDINO
JULVE,
Respondents.
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 Orders 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:
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.cralaw:red
The petition is
impressed with merit.cralaw:red
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 Orders 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 alreadyfinal 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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
__________________________________
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 115, 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 769 [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].
|