Torres v. NLRC [G.R. No. 107014, April 12, 2000

FACTS: Petitioner was employed as a security guard by E & R Security agency. During a routinary meeting of the security guards, Petitioner stood up and shouted at the presiding officer. She was then suspended for 15 days. Later, she received a letter that she was reassigned and required to report to respondent’s Manila office. Her services were terminated for abandonment when she failed to report for work in her new assignment. The Labor Arbiter found for petitioner. Private respondent appealed to the NLRC, which denied the appeal. The decision having become final, the LA issued a writ of execution on the reinstatement aspect, but it was not implemented as the monetary aspect remained to be determined. Later, NLRC sheriff issued a notice of Garnishment served on private respondent’s deposit account with the PNB. The LA directed the PNB to release the amount. Meanwhile, respondent security agency filed with the LA a motion to quash the writ of execution on the ground that there has been a change in the situation of the parties which makes the execution inequitable. It contends that petitioner accepted employment from another security agency without previously resigning from respondent’s agency. The NLRC then ordered the LA to resolve respondent’s urgent motion to quash the writ of execution.


ISSUE: W/N The Labor Arbiter should have ordered the release of the judgment award.


HELD: Yes. Execution is the final stage of litigation, the end of the suit. It cannot be frustrated except for serious reasons demanded by justice and equity. It is ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment. The respondent agency’s contention that there has been a change in the situation of the parties is without merit. It has been held that back wages awarded to an illegally dismissed employee shall not be diminished or reduced by the earnings by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. The decision is final and the total amount representing the salary differentials and back wages awarded to the petitioner has been garnished from the account of respondent agency with no opposition or resistance. Therefore, it is the ministerial duty of the LA to release the money to petitioner.