G.R. No. 220506 - C.I.C.M. Mission Seminaries vs. Perez

Petitioners: C.I.C.M. Mission Seminaries (Maryhurst, Maryheights, Maryshore, and Maryhill) School of Theology, Inc. and Fr. Romeo Nimez, CICM.
Respondent: Maria Veronica C. Perez, an employee who filed an illegal dismissal case against the petitioners.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision on June 16, 2008, granting respondent her right to receive backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, ordering an aggregate payment of approximately P286,670.58.
The LA decision was subsequently affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Court of Appeals (CA), and the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 200490, becoming final and executory on October 4, 2012.
Respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of execution after the finality of the decision, while petitioners opposed by alleging that a released cash bond (amounting to P272,337.05) fully satisfied the award.
The LA, in its July 10, 2014 Order, ruled that the cash bond was insufficient and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution while mandating a recomputation of additional backwages (from June 7, 2008, though the LA’s decision was rendered in 2008) and separation pay until October 4, 2012, resulting in a total award of P1,847,088.89 minus P272,337.05 (i.e. an additional amount due of P1,575,751.84).

Petitioners elevated an appeal before the NLRC and subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the CA challenging the LA’s order and the recomputation thereof.
During the pendency of these cases, a writ of execution was issued and implemented by garnishing CICM’s bank deposit, leading petitioners to move for the urgent quashing of the writ and to seek the lifting of the garnishment.
The LA later issued an order lifting the garnishment on January 14, 2015, but reinstated the writ of execution on April 13, 2015 to enforce the balance of the judgment.
On May 27, 2015, the CA dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. Their motion for reconsideration was denied in the CA’s September 7, 2015 Resolution.

The petitioners contended that the computation of backwages and separation pay should only extend until the LA’s decision on June 16, 2008 – the date when the decision was rendered and reinstatement was refused.
They argued that the cases cited (Surima, Gaco, Oscar Ledesma and Company, Labor, Rasonable, and Bustamante) regarding the computation period up to the finality of this Court’s decision were based on circumstances where the employer’s appeal delayed finality.
Petitioners claimed that since the delay in this instance was attributable to the respondent (employee), the computation of monetary awards should not continue until October 4, 2012.
They further asserted that the recomputation violated the doctrine of immutability of judgment, contending that the earlier final and executory judgment should not be disturbed.

The respondent maintained that the recomputation of the total monetary award should extend until October 4, 2012, correlating with the finality of the Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 200490.
She argued that her appeal of the main case did not prejudice her right to benefit from the recomputation since the employment relationship persisted until finality.

The case involved multiple precedents and principles including those established in Surima v. NLRC, Gaco v. NLRC, and other decisions from the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
The cited jurisprudence underscores that in cases of illegal dismissal, when reinstatement is in dispute or not ordered due to appeals, backwages and separation pay should continue to accrue until the decision becomes final and executory.

Whether the failure of the petitioners to attach the required affidavit of service constituted a fatal defect that warranted the dismissal of their petition.

Whether the computation of backwages and separation pay should extend until October 4, 2012 (the date on which the Court’s decision in G.R. No. 200490 became final and executory), despite the delay being caused by the respondent’s partial appeal.
Whether the jurisprudence governing the computation period in cases of illegal dismissal applies equally when the delay is attributable to the employee and not to the employer.
Whether the recomputation of the monetary award conflicts with the doctrine of the immutability of judgment.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it affirmed the LA’s ruling for recomputation of backwages and separation pay.