THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 192993. April 6, 2015.]
WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND REGINALDO OBEN/WALLEM SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED, petitioners, vs.DONNABELLE PEDRAJAS AND SEAN JADE PEDRAJAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 6, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 192993 (Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. and Reginaldo Oben/Wallem Shipmanagement Limited v. Donnabelle Pedrajas and Sean Jade Pedrajas). — For resolution are petitioners' Manifestation with Motion dated September 23, 2014 and respondents' Motion for Reconsideration dated October 1, 2014.
Records show that on August 11, 2014, this Court rendered a Decision which reversed and set aside the February 11, 2010 Decision and July 20, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the October 31, 2007 Decision and January 30, 2008 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) awarding death benefits to respondents. In lieu of the reversed judgments of the CA and the NLRC, the Court reinstated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, dated March 31, 2006, which denied respondents' claim for death benefits. The dispositive portion of this Court's August 11, 2014 Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102499, dated February 11, 2010 and the Resolution dated July 20, 2010, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter's Decision dated March 31, 2006 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED. 1
In their Motion for Reconsideration, respondents reiterate their basic argument in their Comment to the petition that the Decisions of the CA and the NLRC should be sustained as they are based on established facts, available evidence on record, and pertinent jurisprudence. CAIHTE
On the other hand, in their Manifestation with Motion, petitioners allege that by virtue of a writ of execution earlier issued by the Labor Arbiter, they were constrained to satisfy the judgment award of the NLRC in favor of respondents in the amount of P3,818,531.00. In other words, the award of the NLRC was executed pending resolution of petitioners' certiorari petition before the CA. Petitioners now argue that when this Court reversed and set aside the rulings of the NLRC and the CA awarding death benefits to respondents, the latter have the obligation to return the judgment award paid to them by petitioners. In this regard, petitioners allege that on June 16, 2014, the NLRC issued a memorandum on the New Provisions and Amendments to the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. As amended, Rule XI, Section 18 of the said Rules now provides:
When the executed judgment is totally or partially reversed or annulled by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court with finality and restitution is so ordered, the Labor Arbiter shall, on motion, issue such order of restitution of the executed award, except reinstatement wages paid pending appeal. 2
Based on the foregoing, petitioners pray that respondents be categorically ordered to return to petitioners the executed judgment award.
The Court denies respondents' Motion for Reconsideration but grants petitioners' Manifestation with Motion.
As to respondents' Motion for Reconsideration, suffice it to say that the basic issues raised therein have already been passed upon and resolved by this Court in the presently assailed Decision.
Anent petitioners' Manifestation with Motion, the rule in civil cases is that, in an execution pending appeal, funds are advanced by the losing party to the prevailing party with the implied obligation of the latter to repay the former, in case the appellate court cancels or reduces the monetary award. 3 Although execution pending appeal is sanctioned under the rules and jurisprudence, when the executed decision is reversed, the premature execution is considered to have lost its legal bases. The situation necessarily requires equitable restitution to the party prejudiced thereby. 4 The same is true in labor cases. Thus, in the present case, even if the order of restitution was not categorically stated in the Court's decision, it does not mean that respondents cannot be compelled to reimburse the amount paid by petitioners when this case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for execution. Verily, common sense dictates that since the judgment of the NLRC was reversed by the Court, respondents are required to return to petitioners the amount they received during execution of the reversed judgment without need of a categorical order from this Court. In other words, restitution is necessarily implied from this Court's judgment reinstating the Labor Arbiter's Decision. Petitioners only need to file a motion to this effect before the Labor Arbiter.
Nonetheless, in the present case, in order to prevent further delay in the implementation of the Court's Decision and so as not to prolong petitioners' recovery of the sum to which they are rightfully entitled, the Court finds it prudent to direct the Labor Arbiter to issue an order for the restitution of the amount sought to be recovered. DETACa
WHEREFORE, respondents' Motion for Reconsideration, dated October 1, 2014, is DENIED.
On the other hand, petitioners' Manifestation with Motion, dated September 23, 2014, is GRANTED. The Labor Arbiter is hereby DIRECTED to issue an order requiring respondents to restitute the amount previously paid to them by petitioners and to implement the writ with dispatch. (Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave; Mendoza, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 1966 dated March 30, 2015.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 192.
2. Emphasis supplied.
3.Urban Bank, Inc. v. Peña, G.R. Nos. 145817, 145822 and 162562, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 418, 516-517.
4.Id. at 518.