SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236044. March 21, 2018.]
7D FOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner,vs. 7D FOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP IN BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS, NAMELY: RICHARD-ABAPO, ET AL., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated21 March 2018which reads as follows: cSEDTC
"G.R. No. 236044 (7D Food International, Inc. vs. 7D Food International, Inc. Employees Union-ALU-TUCP in behalf of its Members, namely: Richard Abapo, et al.). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated June 28, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated October 25, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08174. In these issuances, the CA partially granted the petition for certiorari filed by respondent 7D Food International, Inc. Employees Union-ALU-TUCP (7D Employees Union) on behalf of its members, and directed petitioner 7D Food International, Inc. (7D) to pay reinstatement wages to the named employees.
7D is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, whose primary business is the production of mangoes and mango-related products. 4
On February 18, 2005, 7D Employees Union filed a Notice of Strike on the grounds of unfair labor practices and union busting. Records show that the employees concertedly stopped working the following day, but the strike vote was conducted only on February 22, 2005. 5
On March 7, 2005, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the case. The DOLE Secretary issued an Order certifying the case for compulsory arbitration and enjoining any strike or lockout. 6
The members of 7D Employees Union reported for work on March 10, 2005, and those who were not admitted camped out and picketed outside the work premises. In light of the supposed refusal of 7D to admit all the employees who wanted to report back for work, 7D Employees Union went on strike on April 14, 2005. 7
After due proceedings, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Fourth Division issued its Decision 8 dated December 15, 2005, which held, among others, as follows: (a) declaring both the February 19, 2005 and April 14, 2005 strikes as illegal; (b) terminating the employment of union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike; (c) terminating the employment of union members who knowingly participated in the April 14, 2005 illegal strike, despite being ordered to return to work by the DOLE Secretary in her Order dated March 7, 2005; (d) ordering the unconditional reinstatement of 28 employees without backwages; and (e) declaring the quitclaims and releases of 64 union members as valid. 9
7D Employees Union moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC's Decision dated December 15, 2005. In its Resolution dated February 9, 2006, the NLRC denied this motion subject to certain modifications. The dispositive portion of this resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the union's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision promulgated on December 15, 2005 STANDS with a modification in that Genie Erebias who has executed a Quitclaim and Release on September 5, 2005 is excluded among those ordered to report back for work. While Joery Son/Joseph Son who are one and the same person is included among those who are deemed to have lost their employment status under par. d of the dispositive portion of our Decision.
SO ORDERED. 10
Unsatisfied with the NLRC's disposition of their case, 7D Employees Union initiated a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, attributing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 01704. 11
Pending the resolution of the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 01704, the Resolution dated February 9, 2006 of the NLRC became final and executory on March 14, 2006. It was entered into the Book of Entries of Judgment on August 3, 2006. 12 Consequently, 7D filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment on September 22, 2006. 13
Meanwhile, on September 29, 2006, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 01704 and affirmed the Decision dated December 15, 2005 of the NLRC, as modified by its Resolution dated February 9, 2006: 14
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolution of the NLRC in NCMB-RB VII-NS-02-003-05; NLRC Injunction [Case No.] V-000003-05; and NLRC Certified [Case No.] V-000001-05, LSED [Case No.] RO700-2005-05-CI-053 promulgated on December 15, 2005 STANDS subject to the modifications/clarifications expressed in the February 9, 2006 Resolution as regards Genie Eberias exclusion from those who were ordered to return to work and Joery Son/Joseph Son who is included in the list of terminated employees. AaCTcI
SO ORDERED. 15
Soon after the CA's decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 01704 was promulgated, or on October 4, 2006, 7D Employees Union immediately moved for the enforcement of the reinstatement aspect of the NLRC's decision. 16 Yet, the NLRC did not act upon the motions of both 7D and 7D Employees Union. Needless to state, the NLRC's modified Decision dated December 15, 2005, as affirmed, remained unexecuted at that time.
On September 11, 2012, 7D Employees Union moved for the resolution of their motion for enforcement filed almost six years prior. The union followed through on January 10, 2013, by filing another motion to resolve its pending motions. 17
On January 28, 2013, the NLRC issued a writ of execution, reinstating the employees to their former positions without loss of seniority rights, subject to the computation of their reinstatement wages from the finality of the CA's Decision dated September 29, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 01704:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, let a Writ of Execution be issued ordering [7D] to reinstate complainants Richard Abapo, Emerenciana Abatayo, Genera Abatayo, Robelyn Agdang, Noel Batersal, Melchor Belandres, Raquel Cudias, Abelardo Dela Cruz, Joebert Eliot, Gina Gonong, Roland Gubad, Rosa Hista, Arcadio Nulla, Leah Macatual, Jomar Mancio, Nicko Jay Marino, Francisco Minoza, Dindo Montano, Cherry Ann Monterde, Marites Monterde, Randy Monterde, Jocelyn Montesclaros, Donde Pinote, Patricio Rumol, Jessica Telacas, and Alex Ondangan, to their former positions without loss of seniority rights subject to the computation of their reinstatement wages from the finality of the [CA] decision. In this regard, parties are hereby ordered to attend the Pre-Execution Conference on 15 February 2013 at 9:30 in the morning at the Conference Room of the NLRC, 7th Division, 5th Floor, DOLE Building Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. 18
At the scheduled pre-execution conference, 19 7D presented the additional quitclaims and releases executed by several employees 20 who were included in the NLRC's order for reinstatement. 7D Employees Union opposed the modification of the NLRC's writ of execution, arguing that the decision upon which it was based is already final and immutable. 21
After the submission of the parties' respective position papers, the NLRC issued its Resolution dated July 15, 2013 modifying the earlier writ of execution by excluding several other employees from the order of reinstatement, and denying the claim for reinstatement wages, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, let a Writ of Execution be immediately issued ordering [7D] to reinstate the following complainants — namely: Richard Abapo, Genera Abatayo, Melchor Belandres, Abelardo dela Cruz, Joebert Eliot, Rosa Hista, Arcadio Nulla, Cherry Ann Monterde, Marites Monterde, Jocelyn Montesclaros, Donde Pinote, and Jessica Telacas — to their former positions without loss of seniority rights. Complainants' claim for reinstatement wages is, hereby, denied for lack of legal basis. The Resolution, dated 18 January 2013, insofar as the provisions therein, are inconsistent with, herein, Resolution, is hereby set aside (sic). 22
7D Employees Union moved for the reconsideration of this resolution, but this motion was denied in the NLRC's Resolution dated September 30, 2013. Thus, they elevated the matter to the CA via another petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 08174.
The CA resolved the petition in its Decision 23 dated June 28, 2016, partially granting the petition for certiorari. With respect to the employees who were excluded in the order for reinstatement, the CA ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The execution of quitclaims and releases during the pendency of the enforcement of judgment was deemed a material change that would warrant the modification of the final and executory judgment. 24
On the other hand, as to the reinstatement wages, the CA ruled that the NLRC incorrectly denied this claim. It found that none of the parties were at fault for the NLRC's failure to execute its final and executory decision. The delay in the execution of the NLRC's modified Decision dated December 15, 2005, according to the CA, deprived the employee members of 7D Employees Union from the benefits of the final and executory judgment. Since the Decision dated September 29, 2006 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 01704 became final on October 25, 2006, the CA computed the reinstatement wages from that date. 25
7D moved for the reconsideration of this CA decision, which the CA denied in its Resolution 26 dated October 25, 2017.
In light of the CA's grant of reinstatement wages, 7D filed the present petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the basis of the award. 27 7D essentially argued that the February 19, 2005 and April 14, 2005 strikes were already declared illegal. Because the employees ordered to be reinstated participated in this strike, there is no basis to grant the payment of reinstatement wages to these employees. 28
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the petition unmeritorious.
There is no dispute that the NLRC's Decision dated December 15, 2005, as modified in its Resolution dated February 9, 2006, was affirmed in the Decision dated September 29, 2006 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 01704. This decision, in turn, became final and executory on October 25, 2006. 29
Despite being remanded to the NLRC for execution, the final and executory judgment was enforced only after the lapse of more than six years, upon the repeated prodding of 7D Employees Union. In other words, the members of 7D Employees Union were not immediately reinstated to their former positions, even if their right to return to work became enforceable as early as October 25, 2006.
7D, however, argued that since the strikes were declared illegal, there is no basis for granting the payment of reinstatement wages to the employee members of 7D Employees Union. To be clear, the award of reinstatement wages does not accrue to the employee members for the period corresponding to the illegal strike. These are awarded to the employee members as accrued salaries computed from the finality of the Decision dated September 29, 2006 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 01704 — when the order for reinstatement ripened into an enforceable right.
More importantly, the members of 7D Employees Union repeatedly sought to execute, at the very least, the reinstatement aspect of the NLRC's modified Decision dated December 15, 2005. The Court therefore disagrees with 7D that they have abandoned their employment by refusing to return to work, there being no evidence on record of their willful intention to terminate the employer-employee relationship. 30 EcTCAD
The award of reinstatement wages is in line with equity and the administration of justice. As aptly pointed out by the CA in its Resolution dated October 25, 2017, the NLRC may motu proprio execute the judgment as soon as this was remanded by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 01704. 31 The undue delay in the execution frustrated the interest of justice, especially the right of the winning party to the satisfaction of said judgment. 32
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated June 28, 2016 and Resolution dated October 25, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08174 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner 7D Food International, Inc. is ordered to pay reinstatement wages to the remaining employees named in the CA's Decision dated June 28, 2016 from October 25, 2006 until actual reinstatement, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution, until their full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-49.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring; id. at 59-78.
3.Id. at 80-83.
4.Id. at 60-61.
5.Id. at 147-148.
6.Id. at 118-119, 122.
7.Id. at 62.
8. Rendered by Commissioner Aurelio D. Menzon, with Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Oscar S. Uy concurring; id. at 118-163.
9.Id. at 160-163.
10.See Entry of Judgment; id. at 164.
11.Id. at 166.
12.Id. at 164-165.
13.Id. at 180-182.
14.Id. at 166-179.
15.Id. at 178-179.
16.Id. at 65.
17.Id. at 66.
18.Id. at 67.
19.See 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, Rule XI, Section 6.
20.Rollo, p. 67.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 67-68.
23.Id. at 77.
24.Id. at 70-73.
25.Id. at 74-77.
26.Id. at 80-83.
27.Id. at 33-44.
28.Id. at 36-39.
29.Id. at 76.
30.Jordan v. Grandeur Security & Services, Inc., 736 Phil. 676, 697 (2014); see rollo, p. 81.
31.Rollo, p. 82, citing the LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 229.
32.Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, et al., 671 Phil. 320, 340 (2011).