Broadcom Asia, Inc. v. Cosare

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 228079. February 15, 2022.]

BROADCOM ASIA, INC. AND DANTE AREVALO, petitioners, vs.RAUL C. COSARE, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 15, 2022 which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 228079 (Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo v. Raul C. Cosare). — For resolution is the Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, by Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo (petitioners) against Raul Cosare (respondent), assailing the Decision 2 dated August 2, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated October 25, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143420.

On February 5, 2014, this Court promulgated its Decision in G.R. No. 201298, finding the dismissal of respondent as illegal, and ordering petitioners to pay him backwages and separation pay as well as damages in the total amount of P1,915,458.33. 4

In arriving at the monetary award, this Court upheld the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) findings that Cosare's compensation at the time of his dismissal was P55,000.00. Using this amount as base, respondent's backwages were computed from the period starting April 1, 2009, when he was barred from entering the company premises, until July 21, 2010 or the date the judgment of NLRC was issued. 5 In addition, separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, was awarded to Cosare upon a finding that reinstatement would not serve the best interest of the parties due to strained relations. 6 It was computed at the rate of one-month salary for every year of service, reckoning from 1993 (respondent's start of employment) until 2009 (termination from employment). 7

The February 5, 2014 Decision became final and executory on July 18, 2014 following its entry in the Book of Entries of Judgments. 8

Subsequently, Cosare moved for the issuance of a writ of execution and re-computation of monetary award. 9

During the pre-execution conferences presided by Labor Arbiter Zosima C. Lameyra (LA Lameyra), Cosare submitted a computation 10 of his monetary claim that yielded a total amount of P7,537,333.33, which was opposed by petitioner.

In an Order 11 dated September 18, 2015, LA Lameyra held that the monetary award in favor of respondent shall be computed until finality of the Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 201298, which affirmed the NLRC ruling that found Cosare to have been illegally dismissed and ordered the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Citing this Court's ruling in Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals12 LA Lameyra ruled that a re-computation is in order as the reliefs from illegal dismissal continue to add up until full satisfaction, and a re-computation of the monetary award does not constitute a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. Accordingly, Cosare's monetary award was re-computed at P4,902,370.83. 13

In arriving at the increased amount, the same base of P55,000.00 was used. Nevertheless, considering that the original award of backwages was computed only until July 21, 2010, additional backwages were then computed from the period July 22, 2010 until July 18, 2014, the date of finality of the Decision in G.R. No. 201298. From this moment, an additional amount of 13th month pay was computed. Additional separation pay was also computed from the period of 2009 until July 18, 2014. Thus: 14

 

SEPARATION PAY

From	to	Year(s)	Rate	Total
3/30/2009	07/18/2014	5	55,000.00		[P]275,000.00
BACK WAGES
From	to	Month(s)	Rate	Total
07/22/2010	07/18/2014	48.9	55,000.00	2,689,500.00
13 MONTH PAY
2,689,500.00/12				22,412.50	2,711,912.50
				Total	[P]2,986,912.50

DD: Previous computation as per decision of Comm. Nieves E. Vivar De Castro (Sixth Division) dated July 21, 2010		1,915,458.33
TOTAL JUDGMENT AWARD		[P]4,902,370.83

 

Broadcom and Arevalo thereafter filed a Petition to Annul the Order dated September 18, 2015 (With Prayer for the Issuance of a Restraining Order and a Writ of Injunction) 15 under Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

In a Resolution 16 dated October 20, 2015, the NLRC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Similarly, the NLRC found the re-computation proper, citing Session Delights, as well as Nacar v. Gallery Frames17 and Metroguards Security Agency Corporation v. Hilongo. 18 It also held that Cosare is not estopped from questioning the computation made in the August 24, 2010 NLRC Decision. Broadcom and Arevalo's move to reconsider was subsequently denied in a Resolution 19 dated November 25, 2015.

The NLRC likewise held that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to both backwages and reinstatement, or separation pay should the latter no longer be viable. 20 The NLRC further brushed off Broadcom and Arevalo's contention that the computation made in the September 18, 2015 Order was excessive as the 13th month pay and salary base figure should have been lower. As held by the NLRC, they should have raised this as an error before the CA instead of assailing the LA's alleged lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. 21

Finally, the NLRC ruled that Broadcom and Cosare failed to prove that their petition falls within the grounds provided under Section 2, Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. 22

Undaunted, Broadcom and Arevalo went to the CA via a petition for certiorari. 23

In its assailed Decision, 24 the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, and affirmed the NLRC Resolutions with modification as to the imposition of legal interest. Broadcom and Arevalo's motion for reconsideration was similarly denied by the CA in a Resolution 25 dated October 25, 2016.

Petitioners now comes before this Court ascribing error on the part of the CA in affirming the NLRC Resolutions, which ordered the re-computation of the monetary awards due to respondent. In questioning the propriety of the re-computation, petitioners raised arguments similar to those they have already raised in the tribunals below.

By way of Comment, respondent aver that petitioners appear to have been abusing processes to unduly delay the execution of the decision in his favor.

The petition lacks merit.

A case for illegal dismissal or unlawful termination — the underlying case in this petition — is one that relates purely to the status of the parties. Hence, the decision or ruling therein is essentially declaratory of the rights and obligations of the parties, and the monetary award that flows from the declared status, such as payment of separation pay and backwages, is but a necessary and legal consequence of the said declaration. The disposition in affirmative decisions essentially consist of two parts: (1) the finding of the illegality of the dismissal and the awards of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, attorney's fees, and legal interests; and (2) the computation of the awards made. 26 The second part, being merely a computation of what the first part of the decision has already pronounced, may, by its nature, be re-computed. 27

However, in insisting against re-computation, petitioners claim that respondent is not entitled to backwages from April 3, 2009 as he did not pray for reinstatement in his complaint for illegal dismissal. They also argue that our ruling in Session Delights is not applicable to the present case because unlike in Session Delights where the LA did not provide when the computation of the monetary award sought to be executed should stop, the August 24, 2010 NLRC Decision in this case specifically provided for payment of backwages to respondent until the date of said Decision and separation pay computed only until 2009. Petitioners add that respondent did not move to have the August 24, 2010 NLRC Decision reconsidered and have his monetary award re-computed. Lastly, petitioners insist that in his petition in G.R. No. 201298, respondent only prayed for the reinstatement of the August 24, 2010 NLRC Decision.

Petitioners' arguments fail to persuade us.

In Metroguards Security Agency Corp. v. Hilongo, 28 this Court upheld the validity of a labor tribunal's order decreeing the re-computation of monetary awards in an illegal dismissal case as it is not violative of the principle of immutability of judgment. We said:

Consistent with what we discussed above, we hold that under the terms of the decision under execution, no essential change is made by a re-computation as this step is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of dismissal declared in that decision. A re-computation (or an original computation, if no previous computation has been made) is a part of the law — specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this provision — that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of the Labor Code. The re-computation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. 29

Article 279 30 (now Article 294) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to both backwages and reinstatement. Said reliefs have been held to be distinct and separate, 31 qualified by jurisprudence in cases when separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is allowed. 32 Hence, respondent's failure to pray for reinstatement cannot affect his entitlement to backwages.

In computing backwages, We laid down in Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman 33 the different reckoning periods as follows:

(1) from dismissal until the employee's reinstatement, in accordance with Article 279 (now Article 294) of the Labor Code;

(2) from dismissal until finality of the decision ordering separation pay, in cases when separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement (in case this aspect of the case is disputed) or reinstatement is waived by the employee (in case the payment of separation pay is not disputed); or

(3) from dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay, when separation pay is ordered after the finality of the decision ordering reinstatement, by reason of a supervening event that makes the award of reinstatement no longer possible. 34

In Session Delights, it was explained that when separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is decreed, the finality of the ruling that decreed the illegal dismissal becomes the reckoning point, for in allowing separation pay, the final decision effectively declares that the employment relationship is ended so that separation pay and backwages are to be computed up to that point. 35 In other words, the finality of the decision cuts-off the employment relationship and represents the final settlement of the rights and obligations of the parties against each other. 36

Consistent with the discussion above, respondent's backwages and separation pay should be computed until July 18, 2014 or the date when this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 201298, which affirmed the NLRC Decision ordering the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, attained finality. Thus, a re-computation is in order considering that in the August 24, 2010 NLRC Decision, respondent's backwages was computed only until July 21, 2010, while the award of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, was computed only until 2009. The fact that respondent did not move to have the August 24, 2010 NLRC Decision reconsidered and have his monetary award re-computed is of no moment. In Nacar, We applied Our ruling in Session Delights wherein the illegally dismissed employee in said case did not seek any further recourse from the LA decision declaring him to be illegally dismissed, and with the corresponding computation of monetary awards only up to the date of promulgation of said decision. To this Court's mind, regardless of who between the parties sought further recourse from the decision that found the employee to have been illegally dismissed and, consequently, awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, the same consequence follows — that the backwages and separation pay should be computed until finality of said decision.

We wish to reiterate our ruling in Session Delights that a re-computation of the monetary grant is a step which is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of dismissal declared in the tribunal's decision. A re-computation (or an original computation, if no previous computation has been made) is a part of the law — specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this provision — that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of the Labor Code. The re-computation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. Since the Labor Arbiter's computation of monetary award was up to the date of his July 21, 2010 37 Decision only, the CA properly decreed the computation of additional back wages and separation pay to arrive at the proper aggregate monetary value to which respondent is entitled to receive.

Neither does respondent's failure to move for a re-computation when he elevated his case before this Court in G.R. No. 201298 help petitioners' cause. Although We found no reason to modify the NLRC's monetary awards in respondent's favor in G.R. No. 201298, a sensible reading of this Court's pronouncement would show that We merely decreed that there was no compelling reason to disturb the NLRC's finding of respondent's constructive dismissal. As a necessary consequence, respondent is entitled to backwages and reinstatement, or separation pay in case the latter is no longer feasible, as well as damages. Conformably with Session Delights, this forms the first part of the illegal dismissal ruling which has attained finality. Thus, when respondent elevated his case before this Court from the adverse ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 117356 and prayed that the August 24, 2010 NLRC Decision be reinstated, it should be understood that he prayed to be declared constructively dismissed and as such, is entitled to reliefs afforded to an illegally dismissed employee. Said pronouncement, in this Court's view, should not be interpreted to foreclose re-computation so as to make the monetary award conform to what is provided under the law and applicable jurisprudence.

Further, in assailing the correctness of the re-computed monetary award, petitioners claim that the LA used an incorrect salary base of P55,000.00 in its computation instead of the P28,000.00 stated in respondent's complaint for illegal dismissal. This Court finds no compelling reason to disturb this particular figure used by the LA in the re-computation, which has been affirmed both by the NLRC and the CA. Mathematical computations are painted in jurisprudence as factual determinations and, thus, generally beyond the province of this Court, especially when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the appellate court. 38 While there are exceptions 39 to this rule, We find that none applies in this case.

Likewise without merit is petitioners' asseveration that the execution of the monetary award would unjustly enrich respondent to their detriment considering the pendency of their action for damages against the latter in CA-G.R. CV No. 102695 [RTC Civil Case No. 73019-PSG].

The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage. 40 There is no unjust enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit. 41 In this case, there is no question that by virtue of a final ruling, respondent was found to have been illegally dismissed and is thus entitled to the reliefs provided by law — including monetary awards which may be re-computed without violating the immutability of a final judgment.

Finally, as correctly ruled by the CA and in line with prevailing jurisprudence, all monetary awards due to respondent shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, which shall be reckoned from July 18, 2014, or the date of finality of this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 201298, until fully paid. 42

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated August 2, 2016 and the Resolution dated October 25, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143420 are hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioners Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo are ordered to pay the re-computed monetary award in the amount of Four Million Nine Hundred Two Thousand Three Hundred Seventy and 83/100 Pesos (P4,902,370.83) in favor of respondent Raul C. Cosare, with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 201298, on July 18, 2014 until full payment.

The letter dated October 12, 2021 of Ms. Jane G. Sabido, Chief, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, in compliance with the Resolution dated June 14, 2021, transmitting the rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. 143420 with 457 pages, is NOTED. aScITE

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 13-32.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Racoon A. Cruz and Heart Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court); id. at 394-407.

3.Id. at 429-430.

4.Id. at 136.

5.Id. at 112.

6.Id. at 135.

7.Id. at 138.

8. See Entry of Judgment; id. at 94.

9.Rollo, p. 117.

10.Id. at 42.

11.Id. at 117-119.

12. 625 Phil. 612 (2010).

13.Id. at 120.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 186-198.

16. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus, with Commissioners Numeriano D. Villena and Bernardino B. Julve, concurring; id. at 203-211.

17. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).

18. 755 Phil. 287 (2015).

19.Rollo, pp. 232-236.

20.Id.

21.Id. at 208-209.

22. SECTION 2. The petition filed under this Rule may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:

a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter.

b) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not, corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the petitioner.

c) If a party by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence has been prevented from taking an appeal;

d) If made purely on questions of law; or

e) If the order or resolution will cause injustice if not rectified.

23.Rollo, pp. 237-283.

24.Id. at 394-407.

25.Id. at 429-330.

26.Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals, supra note 12, at 627.

27. See Lim v. HMR Philippines, Inc., 740 Phil. 353, 371 (2014).

28.Supra note 18.

29.Id. at 291.

30. Article 294 [279]. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

31. See Torillo v. Leogardo, Jr., 274 Phil. 758, 766 (1991).

32. In Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals, supra note 12, at 628-629, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was held to be proper in the following instances: (1) when continued employment is no longer possible; (2) in cases where the dismissed employee is no longer available; (3) continued relationship between the employer and the employee is no longer viable due to the strained relations between them; (4) when the dismissed employee opted not to be reinstated; (5) payment of separation benefits will be for the best interest of the parties involved.

33. 721 Phil. 84 (2013).

34.Id. at 350-351.

35.Supra note 12, at 630.

36.Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman,supra note 33, at 103.

37.Rollo, p. 112.

38.Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 220030, March 18, 2019, 897 SC RA 254, 264.

39. As enumerated in Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182 (2016), the exceptions are:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee, (7) [When] the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) [When] the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.

40.Republic v. Court of Appeals, 612 Phil. 965, 982 (2009).

41.Id.

42. See Burnea v. Security Trading Corp., G.R. No. 231038, April 26, 2021.