FIRST DIVISION
|
GERONIMO
S. BANQUERIGO, REYNALDO S. MENOR, ROGELIO ENRICOSO, DANILO PALIOTO, COLITO
VIRTUDAZO and HERBERT VELOSO,
Petitioners, - versus - HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, JOSE M. ESPAÑOL, JR., OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and INTERNATIONAL
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Respondents. |
|
G.R.
No. 164633 Present: PANGANIBAN, CJ Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. Promulgated: August
7, 2006 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is
a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54041, dated
Petitioners are salesmen of private
respondent International Pharmaceutical, Inc., (IPI) a domestic corporation
engaged in the manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals.
Sometime in mid-1989, a bargaining
deadlock ensued when the IPI Employees Union – ALU (
As IPI is engaged in an industry
considered indispensable to national interest, on
On
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, decision is hereby
rendered as follows:
1.
finding the IPI
Employees Union – ALU as the exclusive bargaining agent of all rank and file
employees of ALU including sales personnel;
2.
dismissing, for
lack of merit, the charges of contempt filed by the
3.
dismissing the
4.
dismissing the
IPI petition to declare the strike of the
5.
directing the IPI Employees Union –ALU and the International
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to enter into their new CBA, incorporating therein the
dispositions hereinbefore stated. All
other provisions in the old CBA not otherwise touched upon in these proceedings
are, likewise, to be incorporated in the new CBA.[5]
From the foregoing Order, both the
WHEREFORE, in the light of the forgoing
considerations, judgment is hereby rendered:
1.
Dismissing the
motions for reconsideration filed by the International Pharmaceutical, Inc. and
the Workers Trade Alliance Unions (WATU) for lack of merit;
2.
Ordering the International Pharmaceutical Inc. to
reinstate to their former positions with full backwages reckoned from 8
December 1989 until actually reinstated without loss of seniority rights and
other benefits the “affected workers” herein-below listed:
1. Reynaldo C. Menor
2. Geronimo S. Banquirino
3. Rogelio Saberon
4. Estefano G. Maderazo
5. Herbert G. Veloso
6. Rogelio G. Enricoso
7. Colito Virtudazo
x x x
37. Danilo Palioto
x x x
49. Nestor Ouano (listed in
paragraphs 1 & 9 of the IPI Employees Union – ALU’s
Supplemental Memorandum dated
3.
Ordering the
International Pharmaceutical Inc. to reinstate to their former positions the
following employees, namely:
a. Alexander Aboganda
b. Pacifico Pestano
c. Carlito Torregano
d. Clemencia Pestano
e. Elisea Cabatingan
(listed in paragraph 3 of the IPI Employees Union – ALU’s Supplemental Memorandum dated
No
further motions of these same nature shall be
entertained.[6]
Aggrieved by the
abovequoted Order, IPI appealed said Order to the
Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari,[7] which
was subsequently dismissed by the Court in a Resolution dated
On
To speed-up the settlement of
the issue, the undersigned on
Upon verification of the
Computation available at hand, management is hereby directed to pay the
employees including those that were not specifically mentioned in the decision
but are similarly situated, the aggregate amount of FORTY-THREE MILLION SIX
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIVE AND 87/100 PESOS (P43,650,905.87) involving NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (962)
employees, in the manner shown in the attached Computation forming part of this
Order. This is without prejudice to the
final Order of the Court to reinstate those covered employees.
This Order is to take effect
immediately and failure to comply as instructed will cause the issuance of a
WRIT OF EXECUTION.[8]
Meanwhile, on P4,162,361.50.
Thereafter, on P4,182,739.97, as presented
in the Computation attached to the P1,200,378.92. The reduced computation was arrived at by
Assistant Regional Director dela
Torre by deducting from the original monetary award
the commissions, per diems, bodega allowance, and income earned by the salesmen
from gainful employment. As stated in
the said Writ of Execution:
WHEREAS, after careful analysis
on the position papers, the relevant documents on record, the laws and
jurisprudence, the undersigned finds that there is a need to modify not only
the computations but also to exclude, those who are not specifically mentioned
in the Secretary’s decision dated 5 December 1991, their claims not being
proper subjects of a Writ of Execution for the reason that they are not among
those included in the list of “affected
workers” and there being continuing efforts on the part of the Union and IPI
Management to arrive at an amicable settlement as far as these workers still
employed are concerned.
WHEREAS, among the seven (7)
salesmen, namely: Geronimo S. Banquirigo, Rogelio Enricoso, Danilo Palioto, Reynaldo C. Menor, Noli Silo, Herbert Veloso and Colito Virtudazo, who are
beneficiaries of the awards and whose names appear in the Order of the
Secretary of DOLE and represented by Atty. Celso C. Reales, the office finds that the computations include,
commissions, per diems and bodega allowance which should have not been included
for the following reasons:
a. Commissions and per diems –
“But commissions
(“override commissions” plus “net deposit incentive”) are not includible in
such base figure since such commissions must be earned by actual market
transactions attributable to the employee. Neither should “travels
equivalent” (an unusual and unexplained term) and “commission in trading
personal clients” be included in such base figure. (Soriano
v. NLRC, G.R. 75510, Oct. 27, 1989) (underscoring
supplied). Hence, commissions must be
earned by actual market transactions and per diems must be actually earned in
the field before they are includible in the computation of separation pay.
b. Bodega Allowance –
“An
unqualified award of backwages means that the employee is paid at the wage rate
at the time of his dismissal. And the
Court declared that the base figure to be used in the computation of backwages
due to the employee should include not just the basic salary, but also the regular
allowances that he had been receiving such as the emergency living
allowances and the 13th month pay mandated under the law. In this computation of the amount of
backwages, the Labor Arbiter without legal basis excluded the ECOLA. (Paramount Vinyl Products
Corp. vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 81200, Oct. 17, 1990). (Underscoring
supplied). Bodega
allowance being not a regular allowance mandated by law, hence, not includible.
WHEREAS,
the 12 April 1995 computations do not consider the incomes earned from gainful
employment and the amounts they had received from the company in 1989 and 1990
which should have been deducted from the said computations;
x x x x
NOW,
THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to proceed to the premises of International
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and/or its Manager located at San Jose dela Monataña, Mabolo, Cebu City and require
them to pay the aforestated seven (7) salesmen in the
aggregate amount of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY
EIGHT & 92/100 (P1,200,378.92), Philippine currency.[10]
Dissatisfied by
the reduced computation contained in the issued Writ of Execution, petitioners
filed a “Motion Declaring Subsequent Orders Issued by Assistant Director Jalilo dela Torre
Null and Void” on
On 11 July
1995, IPI likewise questioned the 24 May 1995 Writ of Execution issued by
Assistant Regional Director dela Torre
in favor of the fifteen employees represented by Atty. Arnado,
through an Appeal and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
filed before the Office of then Labor Undersecretary Cresenciano
Trajano. Said
appeal was later resolved by then Acting Labor Secretary Jose Brillantes in an Order dated
On Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the fifteen employees, then Labor Secretary Leonardo
A. Quisumbing,[11]
in an Order dated
IPI filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of Secretary Quisumbing’s
Order dated
In the interim,
petitioners reiterated their Motion Declaring the Writ of Execution dated
On 28 January
1998, petitioners received one of the two herein assailed Orders, dated 24
December 1997, issued by Secretary Quisumbing,
affirming his earlier Order dated 27 August 1996, and dismissing IPI’s Motion for Reconsideration for being moot and
academic in view of the full satisfaction of the issued Writ of Execution. In the same Order, Secretary Quisumbing resolved the issue of backwages involving
petitioners. According to the Order:
There is still however one issue
that needs to be resolved. This refers
to the issue of the reinstatement with full backwages of the seven (7) salesmen
mentioned in the Order dated
These employees were also
favored with a Writ of Execution dated P1,200,378.92. In compliance with the Order, IPI deposited
the sum with the Regional Office No. VII, this Department.
We believe that the deposit made
by IPI should be considered as complete and full payment of its liability
insofar as the seven (7) salesmen are concerned. The same was made in compliance with a
validly issued Writ of Execution, the legality of which was never the subject
of a Motion to Quash by the parties. As such
the same has now attained finality and cannot now be questioned nor disturbed.[12]
From the
foregoing Order, petitioners, on 6 February 1998, filed a Motion for
Reconsideration/Amend/Clarificatory and Reiteration of Motion for Issuance of
Writ of Execution dated 12 January 1998, which was consequently dismissed for
lack of merit by then Acting Labor Secretary Jose M. Español
in the second Order assailed herein dated 27 March 1998, the dispositive of which reads:
WHEREFORE, Our Order dated
The Motion for
Reconsideration/Amend/Clarificatory and Reiteration of Motion for Issuance of
Writ of Execution dated
Seeking redress
from the dismissal of their Motion, petitioners filed before this Court an
appeal by way of Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was subsequently remanded to the Court of Appeals
for resolution. On
Hence, the instant Petition.
The pivotal issue which is sought to be resolved in the present case
revolves on the assailed portion of the
We believe
that the deposit made by IPI should be considered as complete and full payment
of its liability insofar as the seven (7) salesmen are concerned. The same was made in compliance with a
validly issued Writ of Execution, the legality of which was never the subject
of a Motion to Quash by the parties. As such
the same has now attained finality and cannot now be questioned nor disturbed.[14] [Emphasis ours]
Petitioners
maintain that the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution issued by Assistant Regional
Director dela Torre is null
and void as it reduced, without authority, the amount adjudged by Regional
Director Macaraya in his 12 April 1995 Notice of
Computation/Execution which ordered IPI to pay petitioners the total amount of P4,182,739.97. Therefore, petitioners aver that, it is
erroneous for the Labor Secretary to make the pronouncement that the deposit
made by IPI, in compliance with the said Writ, is complete and full payment of
its liability towards petitioners.
Petitioners further contend that, contrary to the declaration of Labor
Secretary Quisumbing, they indeed assailed the
legality of the
These
assertions of petitioners deserve scant consideration. Firstly, even if we were to consider the
Motion Declaring the Orders issued by Assistant Jalilo
O. dela Torre Null and Void
as equivalent to a Motion to Quash said Writ of Execution, petitioners’ Motion
cannot be given due course as it was filed beyond the reglamentary
period. It must be stressed at this juncture that petitioners received the Writ
of Execution on 8 June 1995 but filed said Motion only 22 days after receipt,
or on 30 June 1995, clearly beyond the 10-day period for filing a Motion for
Reconsideration of a decision or order of the Regional Director under the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code[15]. As stated by the Court in our Resolution,[16]
dated
x x x A perusal of said motion
shows that: (1) It does not state that it is assailing the
Hence,
notwithstanding the existence of Annex “L” (Motion dated June 29, 1995 and
captioned “Motion Declaring Subsequent Orders Issued By Assistant Director Jalilo O. De la Torre Null and
Void) filed on June 30, 1995 with the Regional Office of DOLE, Cebu City, such attachment is so flawed that it possesses
no bearing on the instant case. Its
existence will not change the result that the petition is dismissible since the
Secretary of Labor did not commit palpable error amounting to grave abuse of
discretion when he ruled that the legality of the June 5, 1995 writ of
Execution was never timely assailed and accordingly, that the writ became final
and executory.
First, as admitted by petitioner himself, the
aforesaid
Worse,
no acceptable reason was advanced by petitioners to excuse their delay in
questioning said Writ so as to warrant a possible relaxation of the procedural
rules. Thus, the Court finds no cogent
rule to depart from the ruling embodied in our earlier Resolution.
Secondly,
supposing We were to give due course to said Motion Declaring Subsequent Orders
Issued by Assistant Director Jalilo O. de la Torre Null and Void, the assertion of petitioners that Assistant
Regional Director de la Torre had no authority to
validly issue the 5 June 1995 Writ of execution modifying the monetary award
contained in Regional Director Macaraya’s 12 April
1995 Notice of Computation/Execution, must fail.
It
is a fundamental legal axiom that a
Writ of Execution must conform strictly to the dispositive
portion of the decision sought to be executed.[18] Quite conspicuously, the final order sought
to be executed by the
As
earlier quoted, the 5 December 1991 Order rendered judgment “ordering the IPI
to reinstate to their former positions with full backwages reckoned from 8
December 1989 until actually reinstated without loss of seniority rights and
other benefits” some 48 employees, including herein petitioners. It is, therefore, to this dispositive
portion that the P43,650,905.87
involving 962 employees.”
A
careful reading of the 5 December 1991 Order vis-à-vis the 12 April 1995
Notice of Computation/Execution will reveal that the said Notice erroneously
ordered the payment of other employees not specifically mentioned in the final
Order as affirmed by this Court.
Furthermore, a perusal of the attached computation will show that said
computation included items that should not have formed part of the base figure
to be used in the computation of backwages due to petitioners. The income earned by petitioners from other
gainful employment was likewise not deducted from said computation.
These
errors in the Notice of Computation/Execution were the ones sought to be
rectified in the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution issued by Assistant Director dela Torre, thus, the said Writ
stated that:
WHEREAS, after careful analysis
on the position papers, the relevant documents on record, the laws and
jurisprudence, the undersigned finds that there is a need to modify not only
the computations but also to exclude, those who are not specifically mentioned
in the Secretary’s decision dated 5 December 1991, their claim not being proper
subjects of a Writ of Execution for the reason that they are not among those
included in the list of “affected
workers” and there being continuing efforts on the part of the Union and IPI
Management to arrive at an amicable settlement as far as these workers still
employed are concerned.
WHEREAS, among the seven (7)
salesmen, namely: Geronimo S. Banquirigo, Rogelio Enricoso, Danilo Palioto, Reynaldo C. Menor, Noli Silo, Herbert Veloso and Colito Virtudazo, who are
beneficiaries of the awards and whose names appear in the Order of the
Secretary of DOLE and represented by Atty. Celso C. Reales, the office finds that the computations include
commissions, per diems, and bodega allowance which should have not been
included x x x.
x x x x
WHEREAS,
the 12 April 1995 computations do not consider the incomes earned from gainful
employment and the amounts they had received from the company in 1989 and 1990
which should have been deducted from said computations;[19]
Considering
that the modifications made by Assistant Director dela
Torre in the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution were made
precisely to correct the errors contained in the Notice of
Computation/Execution, with the intention of making said order in conformity
with the 5 December 1991 Order, We cannot ascribe error upon said action. As has been remarked earlier, a Writ of
Execution may not vary, or go beyond, the terms of the judgment it seeks to
enforce.[20] By amending the original Notice of
Computation/Execution in accordance with the final Order it seeks to enforce,
Assistant Director dela Torre merely adhered to a fundamental legal precept that a
Writ of Execution must conform strictly to the dispositive
portion of the decision sought to be executed.[21]
It
is also stated in the P1,200,378.92. Such deposit, even if not accepted by herein
petitioners, is tantamount to full payment of IPI’s
adjudged obligation. Therefore, this
Court shall uphold the ruling of Labor Secretary Quisumbing,
as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the deposit made by IPI in the amount
of P1,200,378.92, in accordance with the validly issued 5 June 1995 Writ
of Execution, must be considered as complete satisfaction of its liability with
respect to petitioners.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Petition for review is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 54041 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
Pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Penned by Associate Justice (now a
member of this Court) Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,
with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp. 47-64.
[2] NCMB-RAB-VII-06-050-89; CA rollo, pp. 35-42, 43-53.
[3] The Order dated 24 December 1997 penned by then Labor Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing dismissed the Motion for Reconsideration filed by International Pharmaceutical, Inc. for being moot and academic; and affirmed the Order dated 27 August 1996 which granted the employees’ Motion for Reconsideration and set aside the Order dated 22 December 1995, and reinstated with full force and effect the Writ of Execution dated 24 May 1995 based on the Orders dated 26 December 1990 and 5 December 1991, respectively.
[4] The Order dated 27 March 1998 penned by then Acting Labor Secretary Jose M. Español dismissed for lack of merit herein petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration/Amend/Clarificatory and Reiteration of Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, and considered the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution fully executed and satisfied.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 66-67.
[6]
[7] Docketed as G. R. No. 103330.
[8] CA rollo, p. 84.
[9] At the time of the issuance of the Writ, Regional Director Macaraya was abroad and Assistant Regional Director dela Torre was then the Officer-in-Charge.
[10] CA rollo, pp. 88-89, 91.
[11] Now a member of the Supreme Court.
[12] CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
[13]
[14]
[15] Rule XXIV, Section 1. Finality of decisions.
– Unless otherwise specifically provided for in this Book, the decision of the
Secretary, Commission, the Bureau or Regional Director, the Labor Arbiter, the
Med-Arbiter or the Voluntary Arbitrator shall be final and executory
after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof of the parties.
[16] “Nilo Silo v. Hon. Jose M. Español, Jr., in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al., and International
Pharmaceutical, Inc.”
[17] See
[18] Development
Bank of the Philippines v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155838,
13 January 2004, 419 SCRA 131, 136, citing Ex-Bataan
Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 320 Phil. 517, 527 (1995) citing Buan
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101614, 17 August 1994, 235 SCRA 424, 432;
and Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
103590, 29 January 1993, 218 SCRA 233,250.
[19] CA rollo, pp. 88-89.
[20] Windor Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34332,
[21] Supra note 17.
[22] CA rollo, p.
91.