THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6657. April 23, 2014.]
KAREN ACEDRE, complainant, vs. LABOR ARBITER ELIAS H. SALINAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2014, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 6657 (Karen Acedre v. Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas). — Complainant Karen L. Acedre filed an action for illegal dismissal against Aberdeen Court, Inc. and obtained a Decision in her favor dated July 31, 2000 from Labor Arbiter Daniel Cueto (LA Cueto), 1 ordering Aberdeen to pay her: 1) full backwages from the date of her dismissal, tentatively computed at P159,737.50, until the finality of the decision thus rendered; 2) separation pay of one month salary for every year of service, tentatively computed at P15,000.00, also until the finality of the decision thus rendered; and 3) attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award exclusive of the awarded damages. 2
Only Aberdeen appealed from the LA's Decision. On August 31, 2001 the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) overturned LA Cueto's decision and dismissed Acedre's complaint. On November 29, 2002, however, the Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated LA Cueto's decision with additional awards for moral and exemplary damages and held Ricardo and Ritchie Ng, Aberdeen's owners, liable also for the monetary awards due complainant Acedre. Eventually, the CA Decision became final and executory and the records were remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation of awards and execution of the final judgment. 3
On August 30, 2004 after obtaining the computation 4 from the Computation and Examination Unit, respondent Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas, to whom the matter was assigned, issued an order granting Acedre's motion for execution of the CA judgment in her favor despite several motions that Aberdeen filed to forestall the execution. 5ACHEaI
After over two months later or on November 16, 2004, respondent Salinas recalled his August 30, 2004 Order of execution. 6 He refused to implement the final and executory CA Decision on the ground that complainant Acedre was only entitled to what LA Cueto awarded her since she did not appeal from his decision, making the same final and executory as to her. 7
On December 21, 2004 complainant: Acedre filed an administrative complaint for disbarment before the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court against respondent Salinas for refusing to implement the final and executory decision of the CA that increased the awards in her favor. Acedre claims that this constitutes gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of authority, serious misconduct, and violation and defiance of applicable rules, circulars, and settled precedents. 8 Upon receipt of respondent Salinas' Comment, on August 24, 2005 the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report, and recommendation. 9
On June 8, 2012 the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted Investigating Commissioner Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing's report and found Salinas guilty of gross ignorance of the law. It recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three months with a warning that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely. 10
While complainant Acedre did not appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter and, therefore, as a rule she may be deemed to have accepted the correctness of that decision as to her, it is not beyond the power of the appellate court to grant additional damages to her arising from the fact that Aberdeen's appeal compelled her to litigate for some more distance and subjected her to more vexation and expenses. Indeed, the CA did not change the basic award for compensation and separation pay but awarded her moral and exemplary damages. When the CA Decision became final, these awards were just as enforceable against Aberdeen and its owners as the original Labor Arbiter's award.
What is more, the CA Decision that granted her greater award became final and executory. It does not matter that Aberdeen or respondent Salinas may disagree with its merit. That decision is binding on them and there is absolutely no reason for respondent Salinas not to enforce the same against Aberdeen. Once a judgment of the appellate court has become final and executory, there is no excuse for the court below not to enforce the same. It is but its ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution to enforce that judgment according to its original tenor. 11 This holds true of the decisions emanating from the NLRC as affirmed or modified or both by the CA and this Court.
By his action, respondent Salinas is guilty of indifference and utter disrespect for the judgment of a higher tribunal which constitutes grave abuse of authority. 12 Further, he exhibited gross ignorance of the law for refusing to enforce such a final and executory judgment. STcHEI
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendation of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated June 8, 2012 and IMPOSES on Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for THREE MONTHS for grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. He is further WARNED that future commission of any infraction of similar nature will result in the imposition of more severe penalties.
The Court DIRECTS the Office of the Bar Confidant to FURNISH the National Labor Relations Commission and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines with copies of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 22-31.
2. Id. at 31.
3. Id. at 45-46.
4. Id. at 47.
5. Id. at 48-51.
6. Id. at 17-21.
7. Id. at 19.
8. Id. at 1-16.
9. Id. at 115.
10. Id. at 331, 335-344.
11. See: Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 163286, 166025 & 170269, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 622, 634-635.
12. See: Lagcao v. Judge Gako, Jr., 555 Phil. 762, 774 (2007).