SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207127. September 18, 2013.]
DAVAO HOLIDAY TRANSPORT SERVICES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CONCORDIO J. BACARRO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 September 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 207127 (DAVAO HOLIDAY TRANSPORT SERVICES CORPORATION, petitioner v.CONCORDIO J. BACARRO, respondent.)
For consideration is the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02569-MIN dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Davao Holiday Transport Services Corporation, effectively allowing the re-computation of the monetary award to respondent Concordio J. Bacarro in NLRC RAB XI-08-00938-02 3 and NLRC No. MAC-02-010062-2008. 4
Respondent was a taxi driver employed by petitioner from September 2001 until his termination on 22 July 2002. Respondent was paid based on a boundary system; his driving hours totaled twenty-four (24) hours every other day. Thus, he earned an average of not less than six hundred pesos (P600.00) per month. DCIAST
On 31 July 2002, Ignacio Maligad (Maligad), complained to petitioner that Bacarro had driven recklessly, in "utter disregard for safety, and ignorance of traffic regulations," almost colliding with the vehicle being driven by Maligad's son. To avoid collision, Maligad's son swerved to the side, causing the vehicle to hit a concrete canal, thus, damaging the vehicle.
Subsequently, respondent was not given a trip pass and placed on indefinite suspension. Respondent's explanation and remonstration went unheeded impelling him to file a complaint for constructive dismissal against petitioner before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Labor Arbiter Nicolas S. Sayon (Labor Arbiter Sayon) ruled that respondent had been illegally dismissed by petitioner: DaScAI
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that [respondent] Concordio J. Bacarro was illegally dismissed (constructive) from the service.
Petitioner Davao Holiday Transport Services Corporation is hereby directed to pay [respondent] Concordio J. Bacarro the total amount of P30,940.00 representing separation pay and six months backwages. 5
Respondent opted for separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement. In all, Labor Arbiter Sayon awarded the amount of P30,940.00: (1) one month separation pay in the amount of P4,420.00; and (2) six month backwages in the amount of P26,520.00. The award was computed from the time of respondent's dismissal, on 22 July 2002 until 27 January 2003, promulgation date of Labor Arbiter Sayon's decision.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC proper. However, the NLRC forthwith dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to attach a certification against forum shopping in its memorandum. Still seeking relief, petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's dismissal of its appeal on technical grounds.
In yet another setback, the appellate court dismissed the petition for certiorari which lapsed to finality. Entry of Judgment thereon was issued on 24 May 2006; the case was remanded to the arbiter level for execution.
Upon receipt of the Notice of Pre-Execution Conference, respondent filed two motions: (1) Ex parte Motion for Execution; and (2) Motion to Re-compute Complainant's Award. In his second motion, respondent pointed out that the original computation of the monetary awards contained in Labor Arbiter Sayon's decision was reckoned only from the time of dismissal in July 2002 up to January 2003. Respondent averred that the computation should have stated up to the finality of the decision completely terminating the case on its merits, which in this instance was 24 May 2006, the date of finality of the appellate court's decision. CaESTA
The Labor Arbiter at the execution stage, Merceditas C. Larida (Labor Arbiter Larida), denied respondent's motion reasoning that the latter had already opted for separation pay as gleaned from Labor Arbiter Sayon's decision, which decision has obtained finality and can no longer be modified or amended.
From this denial, respondent appealed to the NLRC proper which set aside the ruling of Labor Arbiter Larida: the NLRC awarded backwages from the time of respondent's dismissal in July 2002 up to the finality of the decision on 24 May 2006.
Petitioner assailed the NLRC's ruling via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner argued that the re-computation of the monetary award effectively modified Labor Arbiter Sayon's decision which had already attained finality by virtue of the Entry of Judgment thereof.
Once again, petitioner did not gain reprieve from the appellate court which ratiocinated that the finding of respondent's illegal dismissal has become immutable, while the monetary award may be re-computed. The appellate court declared that the proper computation, based on Article 279 of the Labor Code, should have been worded as "reckoned from the time of the illegal withholding of compensation up to the time of actual reinstatement, if possible, otherwise, up to the time of the finality of the decision." The appellate court likewise imposed legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the finality of the judgment until full payment of the monetary award.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. ATcaID
Petitioner insists that the monetary award contained in the decision of Labor Arbiter Sayon, after reaching finality, can no longer be modified, i.e., re-computed.
We disagree.
The monetary award to Bacarro, as found by both the Court of Appeals and the NLRC, may be re-computed consistent with Article 279 6 of the Labor Code and jurisprudence. Such re-computation does not constitute a modification of a final and executory judgment.
Article 279 of the Labor Code affords an illegally dismissed employee with reinstatement and full backwages. Full backwages is computed from the time the illegally dismissed employee's compensation is withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
On occasions when the dismissed employee opts for separation pay instead of reinstatement, jurisprudence teaches us, as in Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals, 7 that full backwages constitute from the time compensation is withheld up to the finality of the judgment of illegal dismissal.
In this instance, the computation originally made by Labor Arbiter Sayon fell short of what Article 279 of the Labor Code, bolstered by jurisprudence, prescribes. The computation only provided for backwages until January 2003, when Labor Arbiter Sayon rendered the decision. This does not contemplate full backwages under statute and jurisprudence, i.e., up to the time of actual reinstatement or, in the alternative, up to the finality of the decision. aIHCSA
However, we modify the appellate court's reiteration of the payment of interest at the rate old twelve percent (12%) per annum with the advent of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 made effective on 1 July 2013, which reduced the rate of interest for the loan on forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of an express contract, to six percent (6%) per annum. 8
For clarity and to obviate confusion, the formula for the re-computation of the monetary award to respondent is from the time of his dismissal in July 2002 up to the finality of the judgment on 24 May 2006 which judgment shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum until complete satisfaction thereof.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 September 2012 and its Resolution of 5 April 2013 are both AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the rate of legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of judgment or on 24 May 2006, until full satisfaction thereof, is imposed.
SO ORDERED. DaCTcA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, concurring. Rollo, pp. 47-58.
2.Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja with Associate Justices Renato C. Francisco and Oscar V. Badelles, concurring. Id. at 70-71.
3.Docket Number of Respondent's Complaint for Constructive Dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI, National Labor Relations Commission.
4.Docket Number of Petitioner's Appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission.
5.Rollo, p. 15.
6.ART. 279. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the service 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.
7.G.R. No. 172149, 8 February 2010, 612 SCRA 10.
8.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013.