FACTS: Petitioners were officers and members of the PGA Brotherhood Assn., a duly registered LO, operating as security guards employed by PSVSIA, GVM and ASDA. Prior to their dismissal, they were assigned and posted with three different companied of the Roces Group of Companies. On March 21, 1989, petitioners were informed that their services were being terminated. They contended that prior to such dismissal; they were harassed by PSVSIA officers to withdraw their membership from the PGA Brotherhood Assn. Although PSVSIA denied the charge of illegal dismissal, the labor arbiter declared PSVSIA and its responsible officers guilty of ULP and declared that petitioners were constructively dismissed, thereby ordering respondent to reinstate petitioners to their former positions with backwages up to the time of actual reinstatement. PSVSIA failed to submit any evidence to rebut the charges leveled against them. Petitioners then filed a motion to execute the reinstatement. Such motion was not enforced due to the manifestation filed by PSVSIA that petitioners were already “payroll-reinstated, which the latter denied.
On July 9, 1993, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA, but modified the amount of backwages to three years. Also, since complainants Rodolfo Dacanay and Alfredo Tapel did not claim for non-payment of backwages, they were not included among those who were to receive backwages. The NLRC did not delve on the issue of “payroll reinstatement” which was the subject of the motion for contempt.
Petitioner filed a motion for clarification of the resolution reiterating their prayer for the inclusion of their backwages from the time they were terminated up to the present (until actual or payroll reinstatement). Petitioners were paid monetary award for backwages pursuant to the July 9, 1993 decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE: Are petitioners entitled to the collection of their earned salaries, wages and other benefits as payroll-reinstated employees?
HELD: No. petitioners claim that as early as February 25, 1991, PSVSIA had opted to reinstate petitioners in the “payroll.” However, the July 9, 1993 decision has become final and executory. Neither a motion for reconsideration nor appeal was ever taken by petitioners on this point. This procedural lapse is fatal. A final and executory decision cannot be altered nor amended except where a supervening cause transpires which renders its execution unjust or impossible, or on cases of special and exceptional nature, where it becomes imperative in the highest interest of justice to direct the suspension of its execution. Also, petitioners actively participated in the enforcement of the execution by garnishing the supersedeas bond and the bank deposits of PSVSIA. Petitioners, in fact, assented to the computation made by the NLRC showing the judgment awards. Also, the joint Manifestation dated 29 September 1995 executed between petitioners and PSVSIA, stating that “further garnishments on respondent’s bank account are no longer appropriate and necessary” shows that petitioners consented to the amount agreed upon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment