G.R. No. 229302 - Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. vs. Zaragoza

Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. (Condis) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a labor dispute involving respondent Rogel N. Zaragoza.
The case is connected to the earlier illegal dismissal petition, Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. v. Rogel N. Zaragoza (G.R. No. 196038), where the lower courts found Condis liable for the illegal dismissal of Rogel and ordered his reinstatement along with payment of backwages.

In G.R. No. 196038, the First Division denied the petition on illegal dismissal, and the decision became final and executory on March 30, 2012.
Following the finality of the illegal dismissal case, Rogel moved for an alias writ of execution seeking his reinstatement and full backwages, which also included accrued salaries, allowances, and other benefits, offset by a partial payment already released by the Labor Arbiter (LA).
In the LA Resolution dated August 3, 2013, Rogel’s motion was granted, and Condis was directed to pay backwages/reinstatement salaries from the date of illegal dismissal until the LA’s resolution.

Condis filed a petition for extraordinary remedy with the NLRC which resulted in the NLRC declaring the LA’s Resolution null and void in its Decision dated January 13, 2014.
The NLRC ruled that because the Asset Purchase Agreement with Emperador Distillers, Inc. (EDI) rendered reinstatement impossible, the computation of backwages should only extend until the finality of the illegal dismissal decision (March 30, 2012).
Respondent Rogel, however, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, and in its Decision dated March 17, 2016, the CA modified the NLRC ruling by directing that:

Backwages be computed from the date of illegal dismissal until the finality of the CA decision.
Separation pay be computed from the first day of employment (April 18, 1994) until the finality of the CA decision.

Condis petitioned for reconsideration in the CA, which was denied in the Resolution dated January 10, 2017.

Condis contended that the execution of the Asset Purchase Agreement and termination of the subsequent Service Agreement with EDI in 2007 constituted supervening events which made reinstatement impossible because no position existed to which Rogel could be reinstated.
Condis argued that these events should limit their liability for backwages and separation pay up to 2007.
Additionally, Condis challenged the inclusion of certain allowances (hotel/lodging, meal allowances, and monthly incentives) in the computation of backwages—a computation that was initially detailed in the LA’s resolution and later modified by the NLRC and CA.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that Condis did not raise new issues in its Partial Motion for Reconsideration.
Whether the CA erroneously applied the doctrines in Bani Rural Bank v. De Guzman versus the proper application of the ruling in Olympia Housing Inc. v. Lapastora.
Whether the factual findings relating to the existence of a supervening event that precluded reinstatement were binding and conclusive.

Whether the backwages and separation pay should be computed until the finality of the CA/LA/NLRC decisions or only up to the occurrence of the supervening event (the alleged closure via the Asset Purchase Agreement with EDI).
Whether the award of backwages and separation pay beyond the supervening event results in unjust enrichment and an inequitable position compared to other separated employees.

Whether the additional allowances (hotel/lodging, meal allowances, and monthly incentive) that were added during execution proceedings can be included in the computation of backwages despite the finality and immutability of the LA’s decision.