November 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 165450 : November 22, 2011]
FRANCIS F. YENKO, AS ADMINISTRATOR, & MAYOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA BOTH OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, PETITIONERS, v. RAUL NESTOR C. GUNGON, RESPONDENT.
"G.R. No. 165450 (FRANCIS F. YENKO, as Administrator, & MAYOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA both of the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, petitioners, v. RAUL NESTOR C. GUNGON, respondent) and G.R. No. 165452 (RAUL NESTOR C. GUNGON, petitioner, v. FRANCIS F. YENKO, as Administrator, & MAYOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA, both of the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, respondents). � This involves a case of illegal dismissal. On August 13, 2009, the Court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51093, promulgated on September 28, 2004, is MODIFIED. Petitioner Gungon is hereby reinstated, without qualification, to his former position as Local Assessment Operations Officer III in the Assessor's Office of the Municipal Government of San Juan, Metro Manila, without loss of seniority rights. Gungon is entitled to payment of back salaries equivalent to five (5) years from the date he was dropped from the rolls, which is March 1, 1998.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
On September 14, 2009, petitioner Raul Nestor C. Gungon filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (on the Award of Five Years Back Salaries) and Motion for Partial Execution (on the Reinstatement Aspect Pending Appeal).
On December 1, 2009, the Court issued a Resolution[1] denying the motion for partial reconsideration, as the basic issues raised therein had been passed upon by the Court and no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.
Petitioner filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Declare the Mercury Drug Rule as Unconstitutional.
On March 2, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution[2] denying for lack of merit the Second Motion for Reconsideration, and stating that no further pleadings or motions will be entertained, and that entry of judgment be made in due course.
The Decision dated August 13, 2009 became final and executory on February 2, 2010 and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on the same date.
On April 22, 2010, petitioner submitted a Manifestation and Urgent Motion for Execution addressed to Mayor Joseph Victor G. Ejercito, San Juan City, Metro Manila. Petitioner prayed that the Decision dated August 13, 2009 in G.R. Nos. 165450 and 165452 be immediately executed in accordance with law, but his prayer was not acted upon.
On May 12, 2010, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Direct Execution of the Decision with this Court.
On June 22, 2010, the Court resolved to refer the said motion to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.[3]
In a Resolution dated October 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals directed the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to issue a writ of execution to implement the Decision dated August 13, 2009.
On December 7, 2010, the CSC issued Resolution No. 1000468[4] directing the incumbent City Mayor of San Juan and other responsible officials to implement the Decision dated August 13, 2009.
On September 16, 2011, petitioner filed before this Court a Manifestation with Clarificatory Motion (on the Accrual of Backwages from the Finality of Decision on February 2, 2010). In the said Manifestation, petitioner stated that he was actually reinstated on October 1, 2010 and restored to a comparable position of Local Assessment Operations Officer III. cralaw
The issues raised for clarification are as follows:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF OF BACKWAGES FROM THE FINALITY OF [THE] SUPREME COURT DECISION UNTIL ANTE THE PHYSICAL REINSTATEMENT.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION ON BACKWAGES EXTENDS BEYOND THE DATE OF FINALITY OF DECISION.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN JUAN IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES WITH THE PASSAGE OF R.A. NO. 9338.[5]
Petitioner asks the Court when he acquired the right to physical reinstatement. Was it on September 28, 2004 when the Court of Appeals ordered his reinstatement? Was it on August 13, 2009 when this Court affirmed with modification the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals? Was it on February 2, 2010 when the Decision dated August 13, 2009 became final and executory?
Under Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a motion is necessary for execution of the judgment, thus:
Rules of Court, Rule 39, Section 1. Execution upon judgment or final orders. � Execution shall issue as a matter or right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceedings upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.[6]
The general rule in Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is that a judgment can be executed only after it has become final and executory, or finally disposes of the action or proceeding.[7] A judgment or final order that has become final and executory mandatorily requires a specific motion to execute the same.[8]
In this case, the Decision dated August 13, 2009 became final and executory on February 2, 2010. Petitioner first filed a motion for execution with the Office of the City Mayor of San Juan. When it was not acted upon, petitioner filed a motion to direct execution with this Court, which motion was referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. The Court of Appeals referred the case to the court of origin, the CSC, for the implementation of the Decision dated August 13, 2009. On December 7, 2010, the CSC issued Resolution No. 1000468 directing the City Mayor and other responsible officials of the City Government of San Juan to reinstate petitioner, thus:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the City Government of San Juan, through its incumbent City Mayor and other responsible officials, is directed to implement forthwith the following final and executory Decision of the Supreme Court x x x.
x x x x
The City Government of San Juan is further directed to submit to the Commission a report as to the action taken on this matter within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region is ordered to strictly monitor the implementation of this Resolution.[9]
Based on CSC Resolution No. 1000468, the officials of San Juan were directed to reinstate petitioner immediately from receipt of the said Resolution, and the City Government was directed to report its action on the matter within 15 days from receipt of the Resolution. However, even as the CSC directed the reinstatement of petitioner in CSC Resolution No. 1000468 dated December 7, 2010, the City Government of San Juan had already reinstated him on October 1, 2010 per admission of petitioner.[10]
Next, petitioner questions whether he is entitled to backwages during the period of time the Decision dated August 13, 2009 became final and executory on February 2, 2010 until his actual reinstatement on October 1, 2010. He also questions whether the City Government of San Juan is liable for damages for loss of wages since, according to him, the City Government of San Juan did not immediately reinstate him.
Petitioner is not entitled to backwages during the period of time when the decision became final and executory until his reinstatement. When the decision became final and executory, petitioner had to file a motion for execution of judgment under Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to be reinstated. The implementation of the judgment was made in due course from the time petitioner filed a motion to direct execution of the decision with this Court. It bears emphasis that petitioner was already reinstated by the City Government of San Juan even before the court of origin, the Civil Service Commission, issued Resolution No. 1000468 directing the City Mayor and other officials of the City Government of San Juan to implement the Decision dated August 13, 2009. The cases[11] cited by petitioner to support his stance that the superior officers who refused to reinstate an employee after a finding of unlawful termination will be held liable for the employee's back salaries do not apply to this case. There was no delay in the implementation of CSC Resolution No. 1000468, directing execution of the Decision dated August 13, 2009. Section 53[12] (paragraph 2), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules, and Section 6[13] of Republic Act No. 9338, which were cited by petitioner to support his argument for payment of damages, are inapplicable to this case. In fine, the City Government of San Juan is not liable for damages to petitioner.
To hasten the implementation of the Decision dated August 13, 2009, petitioner should have filed a motion for execution of judgment directly with the court of origin, which is the Civil Service Commission, and not with the Office of the City Mayor.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Manifestation with Clarificatory Motion (on the Accrual of Backwages from the Finality of Decision on February 2, 2010) is NOTED. The Court hereby clarifies that petitioner Raul Nestor C. Gungon is not entitled to payment of backwages during the period of time when the Decision dated August 13, 2009 became final and executory on February 2, 2010 until his actual reinstatement on October 1, 2010. The City Government of San Juan is not liable to petitioner for damages for there was no delay in the implementation of petitioner's reinstatement as directed by the Civil Service Commission."
Brion, J., on leave.
Bersamin and Del Castillo, JJ., no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 573.[2] Id. at 605.
[3] Id. at 641.
[4] Id. at 664.
[5] Id. at 647-648.
[6] Emphasis supplied.
[7] Borja v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95667, May 8, 1991, 196 SCRA 847, 849.
[8] Janda v. Roxas, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2054; August 23, 2007, 530 SCRA 796, 807.
[9] Rollo, p. 669.
[10] Manifestation with Clarificatory Motion, id. at 643-662.
[11] Peralta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141966, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 382; Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, G.R. No. 156039, August 14, 2003: 409 SCRA 80.
[12] Sec. 53. The head of department or agency or any responsible official who willfully and deliberately refuses or fails to implement or execute the final resolution or decision of the Commission to the prejudice of the party affected or the public in general shall be liable for contempt of the Commission.
In case the decision directed payment of back salaries, the head of the department shall be made liable in his personal capacity for the payment of said salaries and other monetary benefits corresponding to the period of delay in the implementation of said decision, order or ruling.
[13] Sec. 6. Liability for Damages. � Unless otherwise provided by law, the City of San Juan shall be liable for injuries or damages to persons or property arising from the act or omission of any of its officers or employees while in the performance of their official functions.
