SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 101723. May 11, 2000]
INDUSTRIAL
MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. (INIMACO), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (Fourth Division) Cebu City, and ENRIQUE SULIT, SOCORRO
MAHINAY, ESMERALDO PEGARIDO, TITA BACUSMO, GINO NIERE, VIRGINIA BACUS, ROBERTO
NEMENZO, DARIO GO, and ROBERTO ALEGARBES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BUENA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari
assailing the Resolution dated September 4, 1991 issued by the National Labor
Relations Commission in RAB-VII-0711-84 on the alleged ground that it committed
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in upholding the
Alias Writ of Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter which deviated from the
dispositive portion of the Decision dated March 10, 1987, thereby holding that
the liability of the six respondents in the case below is solidary despite the
absence of the word "solidary" in the dispositive portion of the
Decision, when their liability should merely be joint. S-jcj
The factual antecedents are undisputed: Supr-eme
In September 1984, private respondent
Enrique Sulit, Socorro Mahinay, Esmeraldo Pegarido, Tita Bacusmo, Gino Niere,
Virginia Bacus, Roberto Nemenzo, Dariogo, and Roberto Alegarbes filed a
complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Arbitration
Branch No. VII in Cebu City against Filipinas Carbon Mining Corporation,
Gerardo Sicat, Antonio Gonzales, Chiu Chin Gin, Lo Kuan Chin, and petitioner
Industrial Management Development Corporation (INIMACO), for payment of
separation pay and unpaid wages. Sc-jj
In a Decision dated March 10, 1987, Labor
Arbiter Bonifacio B. Tumamak held that:
"RESPONSIVE,
to all the foregoing, judgment is hereby entered, ordering respondents
Filipinas Carbon and Mining Corp. Gerardo Sicat, Antonio Gonzales/Industrial
Management Development Corp. (INIMACO), Chiu Chin Gin and Lo Kuan Chin, to pay
complainants Enrique Sulit, the total award of P82,800.00; ESMERALDO PEGARIDO
the full award of P19,565.00; Roberto Nemenzo the total sum of P29,623.60 and
DARIO GO the total award of P6,599.71, or the total aggregate award of ONE
HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT PESOS AND 31/100
(P138,588.31) to be deposited with this Commission within ten (10) days from
receipt of this Decision for appropriate disposition. All other claims are
hereby Dismiss (sic) for lack of merit. Jjs-c
"SO ORDERED.
"Cebu City,
Philippines.
"10 March
1987."0[1]
No appeal was filed within the reglementary
period thus, the above Decision became final and executory. On June 16, 1987,
the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution but it was returned unsatisfied.
On August 26, 1987, the Labor Arbiter issued an Alias Writ of Execution which
ordered thus:
Ed-pm-is
"NOW
THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, you are hereby
commanded to proceed to the premises of respondents Antonio Gonzales/Industrial
Management Development Corporation (INIMACO) situated at Barangay Lahug, Cebu
City, in front of La Curacha Restaurant, and/or to Filipinas Carbon and
Mining corporation and Gerardo Sicat at 4th Floor Universal RE-Bldg. 106 Paseo
de Roxas, Legaspi Village, Makati Metro Manila and at Philippine National Bank,
Escolta, Manila respectively, and collect the aggregate award of ONE HUNDRED
THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT PESOS AND THIRTY ONE CENTAVOS
(P138,588.31) and thereafter turn over said amount to complainants ENRIQUE
SULIT, ESMERALDO PEGARIDO, ROBERTO NEMENZO AND DARIO GO or to this Office for
appropriate disposition. Should you fail to collect the said sum in cash, you
are hereby authorized to cause the satisfaction of the same on the movable or
immovable property(s) of respondents not exempt from execution. You are to
return this writ sixty (6) (sic) days from your receipt hereof, together with
your corresponding report.
"You may
collect your legal expenses from the respondents as provided for by law.
"SO
ORDERED."[2]
On September 3, 1987, petitioner filed a
"Motion to Quash Alias Writ of Execution and Set Aside Decision,"[3] alleging among others that the alias writ of
execution altered and changed the tenor of the decision by changing the
liability of therein respondents from joint to solidary, by the insertion of
the words "AND/OR" between "Antonio Gonzales/Industrial
Management Development Corporation and Filipinas Carbon and Mining Corporation,
et al." However, in an order dated September 14, 1987, the Labor Arbiter
denied the motion. Mis-oedp
On October 2, 1987, petitioner appealed[4] the Labor Arbiter’s Order dated September 14, 1987
to the respondent NLRC. Mis-edp
The respondent NLRC dismissed the appeal in
a Decision[5] dated August 31, 1988, the pertinent portions of
which read:
"In matters
affecting labor rights and labor justice, we have always adopted the liberal
approach which favors the exercise of labor rights and which is beneficial to
labor as a means to give full meaning and import to the constitutional mandate
to afford protection to labor. Considering the factual circumstances in this
case, there is no doubt in our mind that the respondents herein are called upon
to pay, jointly and severally, the claims of the complainants as was the
latters’ prayers. Inasmuch as respondents herein never controverted the claims
of the complainants below, there is no reason why complainants’ prayer should
not be granted. Further, in line with the powers granted to the Commission
under Article 218 (c) of the Labor code, ‘to waive any error, defect or
irregularity whether in substance or in form’ in a proceeding before Us, We
hold that the Writ of Execution be given due course in all respects." Ed-p
On July 31, 1989, petitioner filed a
"Motion To Compel Sheriff To Accept Payment Of P23,198.05 Representing One
Sixth Pro Rata Share of Respondent INIMACO As Full and Final Satisfaction of
Judgment As to Said Respondent."[6] The private respondents opposed the motion. In an
Order[7] dated August 15, 1989, the Labor Arbiter denied the
motion ruling thus:
"WHEREFORE,
responsive to the foregoing respondent INIMACO’s Motions are hereby DENIED. The
Sheriff of this Office is order (sic) to accept INIMACO’s tender payment (sic)
of the sum of P23,198.05, as partial satisfaction of the judgment and to
proceed with the enforcement of the Alias Writ of Execution of the levied properties,
now issued by this Office, for the full and final satisfaction of the monetary
award granted in the instant case.
"SO
ORDERED." Ed-psc
Petitioner appealed the above Order of the
Labor Arbiter but this was again dismissed by the respondent NLRC in its
Resolution[8] dated September 4, 1991 which held that:
"The
arguments of respondent on the finality of the dispositive portion of the
decision in this case is beside the point. What is important is that the
Commission has ruled that the Writ of Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter in
this case is proper. It is not really correct to say that said Writ of
Execution varied the terms of the judgment. At most, considering the nature of
labor proceedings there was, an ambiguity in said dispositive portion which was
subsequently clarified by the Labor Arbiter and the Commission in the incidents
which were initiated by INIMACO itself. By sheer technicality and unfounded
assertions, INIMACO would now reopen the issue which was already resolved
against it. It is not in keeping with the established rules of practice and
procedure to allow this attempt of INIMACO to delay the final disposition of
this case.
"WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, this appeal is DISMISSED and the Order appealed
from is hereby AFFIRMED. Sce-dp
"With double
costs against appellant."
Dissatisfied with the foregoing, petitioner
filed the instant case, alleging that the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse
of discretion in affirming the Order of the Labor Arbiter dated August 15,
1989, which declared the liability of petitioner to be solidary.
The only issue in this petition is whether
petitioner’s liability pursuant to the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated
March 10, 1987, is solidary or not. Calrs-pped
Upon careful examination of the pleadings
filed by the parties, the Court finds that petitioner INIMACO’s liability is
not solidary but merely joint and that the respondent NLRC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in upholding the Labor Arbiter’s Alias Writ of Execution
and subsequent Orders to the effect that petitioner’s liability is solidary.
A solidary or joint and several obligation
is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and each
creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation.[9] In a joint obligation each obligor answers only for
a part of the whole liability and to each obligee belongs only a part of the
correlative rights.[10]
Well-entrenched is the rule that solidary
obligation cannot lightly be inferred.[11] There is a solidary liability only when the
obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of
the obligation so requires.[12]
In the dispositive portion of the Labor
Arbiter, the word "solidary" does not appear. The said fallo expressly
states the following respondents therein as liable, namely: Filipinas Carbon
and Mining Corporation, Gerardo Sicat, Antonio Gonzales, Industrial Management
Development Corporation (petitioner INIMACO), Chiu Chin Gin, and Lo Kuan Chin.
Nor can it be inferred therefrom that the liability of the six (6) respondents
in the case below is solidary, thus their liability should merely be joint.
Moreover, it is already a well-settled
doctrine in this jurisdiction that, when it is not provided in a judgment that
the defendants are liable to pay jointly and severally a certain sum of money,
none of them may be compelled to satisfy in full said judgment. In Oriental
Commercial Co. vs. Abeto and Mabanag[13] this Court held:
"It is of no
consequence that, under the contract of suretyship executed by the parties, the
obligation contracted by the sureties was joint and several in character. The
final judgment, which superseded the action for the enforcement of said
contract, declared the obligation to be merely joint, and the same cannot be
executed otherwise."[14]
Granting that the Labor Arbiter has
committed a mistake in failing to indicate in the dispositive portion that the
liability of respondents therein is solidary, the correction -- which is
substantial -- can no longer be allowed in this case because the judgment has
already become final and executory. Scc-alr
It is an elementary principle of procedure
that the resolution of the court in a given issue as embodied in the
dispositive part of a decision or order is the controlling factor as to
settlement of rights of the parties.[15] Once a decision or order becomes final and
executory, it is removed from the power or jurisdiction of the court which
rendered it to further alter or amend it.[16] It thereby becomes immutable and unalterable and any
amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory
judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire
proceedings held for that purpose.[17] An order of execution which varies the tenor of the
judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.[18]
None of the parties in the case before the
Labor Arbiter appealed the Decision dated March 10, 1987, hence the same became
final and executory. It was, therefore, removed from the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter or the NLRC to further alter or amend it. Thus, the proceedings held
for the purpose of amending or altering the dispositive portion of the said
decision are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Also, the Alias Writ of
Execution is null and void because it varied the tenor of the judgment in that
it sought to enforce the final judgment against "Antonio
Gonzales/Industrial Management Development Corp. (INIMACO) and/or Filipinas
Carbon and Mining Corp. and Gerardo Sicat," which makes the liability
solidary.
Ca-lrsc
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution
dated September 4, 1991 of the respondent National Labor Relations is hereby
declared NULL and VOID. The liability of the respondents in RAB-VII-0711-84
pursuant to the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated March 10, 1987 should be,
as it is hereby, considered joint and petitioner’s payment which has been
accepted considered as full satisfaction of its liability, without prejudice to
the enforcement of the award, against the other five (5) respondents in the
said case.
Sppedsc
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
De Leon, Jr., J., on leave.
[1] Decision, Rollo, pp. 17-26.
[2] Alias Writ of Execution, Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[3] Motion to Quash Alias Writ of Execution and Set Aside
Decision, Rollo, pp. 29-32
[4] Appeal, Rollo, pp. 33-37
[5] Decision of the NLRC, Rollo, pp. 38-42; Order,
Rollo, p. 48; Manifestation In Lieu of Comment, Rollo, p. 92.
[6] Motion to Compel Sheriff to Accept …, Rollo,
pp. 43-46
[7] Order, Rollo, pp. 47-50
[8] Resolution dated Sept. 4, 1991 of the NLRC, Rollo,
pp, 62-66
[9] Inciong, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 578
[1996].
[10] See Art. 1207, Civil Code of the Philippines.
[11] Smith, Bill & Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 267 SCRA 530 [1997].
[12] Inciong, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA
578 [1996].
[13] 60 Phil. 723 [1934].
[14] citing De Leon vs. Nepomuceno and De Jesus, 37
Phil. 180; Sharruf vs. Tayabas Land Co. and Ginainati, 37 Phil. 655
[15] Suntay vs. Conjuangco-Suntay, 300 SCRA 760
[1998].
[16] Schering Employees’ Labor Union vs. NLRC, 296
SCRA 237 [1998]; Nacuray vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 9 [1997].
[17] Arcenas vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 733
[1998].
[18] Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Court of
Appeals, 279 SCRA 364 [1997].