November 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 190648 : November 14, 2011]
HYATT TAXI SERVICES, INC./MR. CESAR LEE/MR. CONSTANCIO RAMOS, JR. V. WILFREDO CERILLO
G.R. No. 190648 (Hyatt Taxi Services, Inc./Mr. Cesar Lee/Mr. Constancio Ramos, Jr. v. Wilfredo Cerillo)
RESOLUTION
Before Us is a Motion for Clarification with Leave of Court filed by respondent Wilfredo Cerillo (Wilfredo) on May 13, 2011. Clarification is sought on the period applicable for the monetary awards granted to him.
It must be recalled that, on April 24, 2008, Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam (LA Macam) of the NLRC-NCR rendered a Decision[1] in NLRC-NCR-08-09158-07, finding Wilfredo illegally dismissed and ordered petitioners to pay him: (a) full backwages from the date of dismissal on July 11, 2007 until the date of the Decision; (b) due to strained relations, separation pay of one month for every year of service; (c) moral and exemplary damages of PhP 50,000; and (d) 10% of the total award as attorney's fees. The fallo of the decision reads in full:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered declaring the dismissal of complainant [Wilfredo] as illegal and ordering the respondents to pay him his full backwages from the date of dismissal until the date of this decision, separation pay [sic] one month pay per year of service due to strained relations, damages, moral and exemplary, of P50,000.00 pesos, plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees as computed by the Computation Unit of this Arbitration Branch.
SO ORDERED.[2]
Upon appeal, on January 26, 2009, the NLRC Third Division rendered a Resolution[3] in NLRC LAC No. 07-002405-08, which reversed and set aside the LA Decision, with the finding that Wilfredo's dismissal was valid. Wilfredo's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 8, 2009.[4]
Upon Wilfredo's petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), on October 28, 2009, the CA rendered its Decision[5] in CA-G.R. SP No. 109737, reversing and setting aside the NLRC Resolution and reinstating the LA Decision, with modification in that the awards of PhP 50,000 as moral and exemplary damages and 10% attorney's fees were deleted. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on December 2, 2009.[6]
Subsequently, on February 17, 2010, We denied the petition for review on certiorari of petitioners for their "failure to show any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction."[7] On July 21, 2010, We denied with finality petitioners' motion for reconsideration.[8] Accordingly, on August 27, 2010, Entry of Judgment[9] was issued in this case.
Consequently, Wilfredo moved for execution of the Decision before the LA. Wilfredo submitted computations of what he believed are the backwages and separation pay due him, which were, however, contested by petitioners. The LA, however, agreed with petitioners that Wilfredo, under the April 24, 2008 LA Decision, is supposedly entitled to full backwages from the date of his dismissal on July 11, 2007 up to only April 24, 2008 (the date of LA Macam's Decision), and not until the finality of the Decision of the instant labor case as claimed by Wilfredo, and separation pay from 1995 until 2007 or the year he was dismissed. In short, the bone of contention is up to when Wilfredo is entitled to full backwages and separation pay, the object of the present recourse through a Motion for Clarification with Leave of Court.
Relying on Surima v. National Labor Relations Commission,[10] which cited Gaco v. NLRC,[11] and Javellana v. Belen,[12] Wilfredo argues that the monetary awards due him comprising his full backwages and separation pay ought to be computed until the finality of the decision through this Court's resolution, which he asserts is on August 27, 2010 when the entry of judgment was issued in this case.
On the other hand, petitioners, in their Comment, assert that the April 24, 2008 LA Decision, as modified�with the deletion of attorney's fees and damages�had already become final and executory, and may no longer be modified, as, they cited, aptly enunciated in Briones-Vasquez v. Court of Appeals.[13]
While the decretal portion of the April 24, 2008 Decision of LA Macam indicates "full backwages from the date of dismissal until the date of this decision," such cannot be construed, as petitioners assert, that full backwages are reckoned from the date of dismissal up to April 24, 2008 when LA Macam rendered his decision, and that the separation pay is computed only up to the illegal dismissal of Wilfredo on July 11, 2007. First, there are no factual and legal bases for these. Second, the determination of the propriety of the monetary awards of backwages and separation pay in illegal dismissal cases only becomes settled and conclusive upon the finality of the decision of said case and not necessarily upon the determinations made by the LA, NLRC or the CA when these are further appealed. Thus, We hold that the phrase "the date of this decision" refers to the date of the finality of our Decision, i.e., on July 21, 2010 when petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied with finality.
Verily, it is all too evident that an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to the twin reliefs of full backwages and reinstatement, but if reinstatement is not viable, separation pay is awarded to the employee in an amount equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service. The Court has consistently applied that the computation for full backwages due to an illegally dismissed employee is reckoned from the date of his illegal dismissal up to the finality of the decision in the labor case. Similarly, the grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service is computed from the date the employee was hired or engaged up to the finality of the decision of the labor case. Thus, there is neither factual nor legal basis to construe that the monetary awards are applied only up to the date of the rendition of judgment by the LA, even if said judgment has been affirmed with modification, as in the instant case.
In CRC Agricultural Trading v. National Labor Relations Commission,[14] with the finding of illegal dismissal, the Court emphatically reiterated the consistent application of the monetary awards of full backwages�inclusive of allowances and other benefits�from the date of dismissal up to the finality of the decision, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, computed from the time of the illegally dismissed employee's engagement up to the finality of this decision.
The rationale for pegging the monetary awards in illegal dismissal cases up to the finality of the decision is all too evident. The finality of the decision in labor cases involving illegal dismissal is the point of final and conclusive determination of the monetary awards of backwages and separation pay due to an illegally dismissed employee. Corollarily, the grant and determination of these monetary awards made by the LA, the NLRC or the CA may not become final when there are appeals taken by a party-litigant. As in the instant case, the determination of the awards of full backwages and separation pay initially granted by LA Macam only became conclusive and final�after all the appeals taken all the way to this Court�when We denied with finality petitioners' motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2010.
True is it that the dispositive portion of the final and executory LA Decision, as affirmed with modification by the CA, was couched in an ambiguous manner, yet its real meaning and import is all too discernable from the application of the nature of these monetary awards in illegal dismissal cases. Besides, while not at point, We will not be remiss to point out, if only to recognize petitioners' assertion that a final and executory decision may no longer be modified, that where something can be construed and interpreted in two (2) divergent ways (as in the dispositive portion of the LA Decision in the instant case), that which is prejudicial to an illegally dismissed employee and the other, favorable to him, the balance must be tilted in favor of the employee consistent with the principle of social justice.
WHEREFORE, Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam is directed to compute the award of full backwages, inclusive of all allowances and other benefits, of respondent Wilfredo Cerillo, from the date of his dismissal up to July 21, 2010; and his separation pay, equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, shall similarly be computed from the time of his engagement up to July 21, 2010.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 86-93.
[2] Id. at 92.
[3] Id. at 72-81, Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog, III.
[4] Id. at 83-84.
[5] Id. at 53-67. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales Sison.
[6] Id. at 69-70.
[7] Id. at 249.
[8] Id. at 267.
[9] Id. at 268.
[10] G.R. No. 121147, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 260.
[11] G.R. No. 104690, February 23, 1994, 230 SCRA 260.
[12] G.R. No. 182158, March 5, 2010, 609 SCRA 342.
[13] G.R. No. 144882, February 4, 2005, 450 SCRA 482.
[14] G.R. No. 177664, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 138.