Case Digest (G.R. No. 229302)
Facts:
Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. v. Rogel N. Zaragoza, G.R. No. 229302, June 20, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. (Condis) seeks review of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated March 17, 2016 and Resolution dated January 10, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 135538, which affirmed with modification the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision dated January 13, 2014. The dispute arises from an earlier illegal dismissal case docketed as G.R. No. 196038.
In G.R. No. 196038 the Court (First Division) denied Condis’s petition in a Resolution dated June 22, 2011; that resolution became final and executory on March 30, 2012. The underlying line of cases began when the Labor Arbiter (LA) found that respondent Rogel N. Zaragoza had been illegally dismissed, ordered his reinstatement and awarded backwages; that LA Decision became final after the Court’s disposition in G.R. No. 196038.
After finality, Rogel sought issuance of an alias writ of execution for reinstatement and payment of backwages; Condis opposed, contending that its Asset Purchase Agreement with Emperador Distillers, Inc. (EDI) and the termination of a subsequent Service Agreement rendered reinstatement impossible. In a Resolution dated August 3, 2013 the LA granted the alias writ and directed Condis to pay P2,135,256.45 representing backwages/reinstatement salaries up to that date.
Condis filed an extraordinary remedy with the NLRC, which in a Decision dated January 13, 2014 declared the LA’s August 3, 2013 Resolution null and void, held that reinstatement was rendered impossible by the Asset Purchase Agreement, and ruled that backwages should be computed only until the finality of the Court’s Resolution in G.R. No. 196038 (March 30, 2012). Rogel then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. The CA in its March 17, 2016 Decision affirmed the NLRC with modification: it ordered backwages computed from the date of illegal dismissal until finality of the CA Decision and separation pay f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in ruling that petitioner did not raise new issues in its Partial Motion for Reconsideration?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the rule of computation in Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman (Bani) rather than Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Lapastora (Olympia Housing), i.e., should backwages and separation pay be computed only until the occurrence of the alleged supervening event (2007) rather than until finality of the decision awarding separation pay?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding backwages and separation pay beyond the occurrence of the alleged supervening event thereby resulting in unjust enrichment or a confiscatory award?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the inclusion of allowances and other items that were fi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)