FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 184579. April 4, 2018.]
THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO, petitioner, vs. ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING CO., JOSE JAVIER, EDWARD TAN, ATTY. PABLO R. CRUZ AND LABOR ARBITER ARIEL CADIENTE SANTOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 184579 (Thelma Dumpit-Murillo v. Associated Broadcasting Co., Jose Javier, Edward Tan, Atty. Pablo R. Cruz and Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos). — This is a petition 1 filed by Thelma Dumpit-Murillo (petitioner) to cite the Associated Broadcasting Co. (ABC), Jose Javier, who was the Vice President for News and Public Affairs of ABC at that time, 2 Edward Tan, another officer of ABC 3 (collectively referred to as respondents ABC, et al.), and Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos (LA Cadiente Santos) in indirect contempt for acts committed in the course of the proceedings for the execution of our Decision in Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of Appeals. 4
Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of Appeals involved a case for illegal dismissal originating from National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Case No. 30-12-00985-99. There, we affirmed the NLRC Resolution dated August 30, 2000 and ruled that petitioner was a regular employee of respondent ABC who was constructively dismissed without due process. The dispositive portion of our Decision provides:
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision dated January 30, 2004 and Resolution dated June 23, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63125, which held that the petitioner was a fixed-term employee, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The NLRC decision is AFFIRMED.
Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED. 5
On the other hand, the affirmed NLRC Resolution provides:
"WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Arbiter dated 29 March 2000 is hereby REVERSED/SET ASIDE and a NEW ONE promulgated:
1) declaring respondents to have illegally dismissed complainant from her regular work therein and thus, ordering them to reinstate her in her former position without loss of seniority right[s] and other privileges and to pay her full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, including 13th month pay based on her said latest rate of P28,000.00/mo. from the date of her illegal dismissal on 21 October 1999 up to finality hereof, or at complainant's option, to pay her separation pay of one (1) month pay per year of service based on said latest monthly rate, reckoned from date of hire on 30 September 1995 until finality hereof;
2) to pay complainant's accrued SILP [Service Incentive Leave Pay] of 5 days pay per year and 13th month pay for the years 1999, 1998 and 1997 of P19,236.00 and P84,000.00, respectively and her accrued salary from 16 September 1999 to 20 October 1999 of P32,760.00 plus legal interest at 12% from date of judicial demand on 20 December 1999 until finality hereof;
3) to pay complainant moral damages of P500,000.00, exemplary damages of P350,000.00 and 10% of the total of the adjudged monetary awards as attorney's fees.
Other monetary claims of complainant are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." 6 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted.)
Our Decision became final and executory on October 22, 2007. 7
On January 21, 2008, petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of writ of execution to implement the Decision. 8 Respondent LA Cadiente Santos set the case for pre-execution conference. On February 12, 2008, the Office of the Labor Arbiter released the Computation of Awards per NLRC Decision dated August 30, 2000 totaling P4,243,862.26. 9
Petitioner filed on March 17, 2008 a manifestation with reiteration of motion for the issuance of writ of execution, praying, among others, for: (1) issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of the Decision in G.R. No. 164652 dated June 8, 2007 in favor of petitioner and against respondents ABC, et al.; and (2) directing the computation of backwages to be paid to petitioner from October 22, 2007 up to the present. 10
On March 25, 2008, respondent ABC sent a notice to report to work directing petitioner to report within 72 hours from receipt of the notice. It was signed by Mr. Regalado D. Galura, Chief Operating Officer and Managing Director of ABC Management. 11
On April 11, 2008, respondents ABC, et al., filed an urgent manifestation with motion 12 alleging that petitioner's duties are no longer obtaining because the two programs namely: (1) "Balitang-Balita;" and (2) "Live on Five" where petitioner was engaged to appear on camera as newscaster are no longer on-air, the same having been abolished several years earlier. 13 Thus, reinstating petitioner back to her position "would mean giving her [an] assignment of insignificant or menial function, which [petitioner] [might] find absolutely degrading to her person." 14 Respondents ABC, et al., added that reinstatement of petitioner has become a physical impossibility. 15
On April 21, 2008, petitioner filed a reply (with manifestation & ex-parte motion) and asserted her right to immediate reinstatement. She claimed that there was no truth to the claim that her former position was abolished because respondent ABC's News and Public Affairs Division continuously maintain on-air news programs, employing news anchor and reporters. She also reiterated her demand for the correction of computation of backwages accruing to her. 16
On June 12, 2008, respondent LA Cadiente Santos issued an Order 17 stating that he "could not substitute his judgment over sound business policy of whether or not it is profitable to engage the services of [petitioner] in a newly created hosting job because by doing so, she will be unduly interfering in the business of [respondents ABC, et al.] which should strictly be regulated by its board of directors in the spirit of free enterprise." 18 Respondent LA Cadiente Santos further ruled that in the event of impossibility of reinstatement due to a supervening event and through no fault of respondents ABC, et al., the latter are liable to pay petitioner her separation pay equivalent to one month per year of service. 19
The dispositive portion of the Order provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are declared liable to pay complainant her separation pay of one month per year of service from date of employment until April 04, 2008.
SO ORDERED. 20
On July 17, 2008, petitioner filed her memorandum of appeal before the NLRC raising as an issue the invalidity of the Order dated June 12, 2008. 21 Respondents filed their answer dated September 15, 2008. 22
On October 9, 2008, petitioner filed before this Court the present petition against respondents on the following grounds: (1) disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a court; and (2) any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. 23
Petitioner argues that respondent ABC filed the urgent manifestation with motion dated April 3, 2008 to prevent the implementation of the reinstatement aspect of our Decision dated June 8, 2007 in G.R. No. 164652 which had already attained finality. 24 This, despite our directive that "no other pleadings or motions shall be entertained x x x" 25 and the return to work order previously issued by respondent ABC to petitioner last March 25, 2008.
Meanwhile, on March 26, 2010, and pending the resolution of the petition before us, the NLRC rendered its Resolution 26 in NLRC Case No. 30-12-00985-99 and NLRC CA No. 024270-00 (AE-08-08) affirming the Order of the Labor Arbiter dated June 12, 2008. The NLRC noted that while petitioner assailed the official computation of the monetary award totaling P4,243,862.26, the parties had already agreed to pay the amount in six equal installments and that these were already paid on March 31, May 2, May 30, June 30, July 31, and August 29, 2008. 27
Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the Resolution but this was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution 28 dated June 29, 2010.
On December 9, 2015, 29 we required the parties to inform the Court of the current status of NLRC Case No. 30-12-00985-99 and NLRC CA No. 024270-00 (AE-08-08).
Respondents ABC, et al., submitted their compliance 30 dated February 22, 2016. In their compliance, they alleged that NLRC Case No. 30-12-00985-99 had been closed and terminated per Order dated September 24, 2012 issued by then Labor Arbiter Marcial Galahad T. Makasiar. Respondents ABC, et al., attached a copy of the Order 31 dated September 24, 2012 and the Acknowledgment Receipt 32 dated September 6, 2012, duly signed by petitioner. This Order declared the full satisfaction of the Decision and the full termination of the proceedings. As per Sheriff's Report/Return on the writ of execution, the parties have already amicably settled the case on September 6, 2012 by voluntary payment of P364,000.00, the total monetary award of the complaint. 33
In the Acknowledgment Receipt, petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Banco De Oro Check Number 6052 in the amount of P364,000.00 representing full amount of her separation pay pursuant to the Labor Arbiter's Order dated June 12, 2008, the NLRC Order dated May 26, 2010 and the Labor Arbiter Resolution dated May 21, 2012. Petitioner also did not make any express reservation in the event of a favorable decision on her petition. 34
Despite being likewise required, petitioner failed to inform this Court of the status of NLRC Case No. 30-12-00985-99 and NLRC CA No. 024270-00 (AE-08-08). Our examination of the records shows no indication that petitioner appealed the NLRC Resolution dated June 29, 2010. While petitioner could not have alleged yet in her petition dated September 26, 2008 and reply 35 dated May 9, 2009 the NLRC Resolution dated June 29, 2010, her petition and reply having been filed earlier, she nevertheless did not refer to the subsequent proceedings before the NLRC in her memorandum 36 filed before us on September 21, 2010. This, despite the fact that she continued to raise as an issue respondent LA Cadiente Santos' computation of her monetary awards. 37 It also appears that petitioner was furnished a copy of the compliance 38 dated February 22, 2016 with the attached Order dated September 24, 2012 and Acknowledgment Receipt dated September 6, 2012. 39 She did not, however, take any action before this Court to dispute ABC's claims.
Under these circumstances, we deny the petition for being moot and academic.
A case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or legal effect because it cannot be enforced. 40
We find that: (1) the NLRC Resolution dated June 29, 2010 denying the motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated March 26, 2010 and affirming the Labor Arbiter's computation and order to pay separation pay, has attained finality; and (2) NLRC Case No. 30-12-00985-99 has already been closed and terminated since the Decision has been fully satisfied. When a judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond review, satisfaction being the last act and the end of the proceedings, and payment or satisfaction of the obligation thereby established produces permanent and irrevocable discharge. 41 We find no practical need in determining whether respondents are in indirect contempt.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic.
The respondent's motion for an extension of ten (10) days from March 20, 2017 within which to file a comment on the ex-parte manifestation with motion is GRANTED; the aforesaid comment and the compliance of Atty. Pablo R. Cruz, counsel for private respondents, submitting: (1) the certified true copy of the Resolution dated September 24, 2012 of Labor Arbiter Galahad T. Makasiar in NLRC Case No. 30-12-985-99; and (2) the certified true copy of the Acknowledgement Receipt dated September 6, 2012 duly signed by Ms. Thelma Dumpit-Murillo, and informing the Court that he has already furnished respondent Associated Broadcasting Co., a copy of the Ex-Parte Manifestation with Motion, are both NOTED; and respondent Associated Broadcasting Co. is hereby required to SUBMIT within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed motion for extension to file comment re: ex-parte manifestation with motion and the signed comment pursuant to A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave;De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-42.
2.Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164652, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 290, 294.
3.Rollo, p. 4.
4.Supra.
5.Id. at 305.
6.Id. at 295-296.
7.Rollo, p. 95.
8.Id. at 8.
9.Id. at 8-9, 96.
10.Id. at 9-10.
11.Id. at 10, 98.
12.Id. at 99-100.
13.Id. at 99.
14.Id. at 100.
15.Id.
16.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
17.Id. at 103-104.
18.Id. at 103.
19.Id. at 104.
20.Id.
21.Rollo, p. 13.
22.Id. at 13-14.
23.Id. at 14.
24.Id. at 19.
25.Id. at 16. Citation omitted.
26.Id. at 194-199. A copy of the NLRC Resolution dated March 26, 2010 was attached by respondents ABC, et al., in their memorandum filed before us on September 21, 2010.
27.Id. at 196.
28.Id. at 201-202.
29.Id. at 251.
30.Id. at 252-253.
31.Id. at 254-255.
32.Id. at 256.
33.Id. at 254. The amount of P364,000.00 must be understood as petitioner's separation pay and not the total monetary award of the complaint as shown by: (1) petitioner's Acknowledgment Receipt; and (2) the Computation of Awards per NLRC Decision dated August 30, 2000 totaling P4,243,862.26 which was already paid by respondents ABC, et al.
34. Id. at 256.
35. Id. at 158-171.
36. Id. at 177-192.
37. Id. at 232.
38. Id. at 252-253.
39. Id. at 254-256.
40. Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, G.R. No. 208660, March 5, 2014, 718 SCRA 212, 217-218.
41. Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr., G.R. No. 191906, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 343, 357.