Execution is the final stage of litigation, the end of the suit. Backwages must be computed from the time the employee was unjustly dismissed until his or her actual reinstatement or upon payment of his or her separation pay if reinstatement is no longer feasible. Hence, insofar as accrued backwages and other benefits are concerned, the employer’s obligation to the employee continues to accumulate until the employer actually implements the reinstatement aspect of the final judgment or fully satisfies the monetary award in case reinstatement is no longer possible.1Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena, G.R. No. 173076, October 10, 2007, 561 PHIL 620-646.
In one case, the Office of the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dated 12 September 2003 declaring the employer liable for illegal dismissal of the employee, with separation pay, backwages, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
On 29 July 2004, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the illegality of the employee’s dismissal from employment, as well as the monetary award, when it dismissed the appeal of the employer for non-perfection. This Decision became final and executory on 10 January 2005. As soon as an entry of judgment thereon was issued on 17 January 2005, the corresponding writ of execution was implemented and satisfied in full.
This, notwithstanding, the employer opted elevate the case before the Court of Appeals and later, before the Supreme Court. However, the employer lost in both fora. The Supreme Court’s Resolution dated 23 June 2008 dismissing the employer’s petition became final and executory on 21 August 2008.
On 3 November 2008, the employee sought for additional increments to her monetary award. She posited that her backwages, separation pay, and other benefits should be computed up to 21 August 2008 when the resolution of the Supreme Court became final and executory.
May the employee be granted a recomputation of accrued backwages, separation pay, and other benefits?
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, since the employee was no longer entitled to a recomputation or increase of the monetary award already paid her.
While the Court noted that the employer formally opposed the employee’s claims, record, nonetheless, shows that the judgment was executed way back in 2005. For the Court, the employer had already satisfied the final monetary benefits awarded to the employee. Corollary, “the latter may not ask for another round of execution, lest, it violates the principle against unjust enrichment.” There was no additional increment which accrued to the employee by reason of the Supreme Court’s Resolution dated 23 June 2008 which did not modify, let alone, alter the long executed judgment of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Jurisprudence2Mercury Drug Corp. v. Spouses Huang, G.R. No. 197654, August 30, 2017, 817 PHIL 434-464 dictates that a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended, or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to correct a perceived error in conclusions of fact and law and regardless of what court renders it. More so when, as in this case, such final judgment had already been executed and fully satisfied.
The Court stressed that the employee’s receipt of full backwages, separation pay, and other benefits in 2005 effectively severed the employer-employee relationship between her and the employer. From that point up until the finality of the Court’s Resolution dated 23 June 2008, the employee no longer had a right to demand further benefits as such.
The Court stated that “granting a recomputation and, consequently, another round of execution would indubitably alter the original decision which had been completely satisfied, nay, unjust enrichment would certainly result.”
Further reading:
- Tan v. Dagpin, G.R. No. 212111, January 15, 2020.
