G.R. No. 192947 - De Ocampo vs. Radio Philippines Network, Inc.

Complainant: Melanie E. De Ocampo, who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid salaries, damages, and attorney's fees.
Respondents: Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPN-9) and its officers, including President Cerge Remonde, News and Current Affairs Manager Rodolfo Lacuna, and Human Resources Manager Lourdes Angeles.
The case was docketed under NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-05 857-2003.

May 12, 2004: Executive Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala rendered a decision finding De Ocampo to have been illegally dismissed, ordering RPN-9 to pay full backwages, separation pay, and 13th month pay, and also awarding attorney’s fees.
February 28, 2006: The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Arbiter’s decision.
April 28, 2006: RPN-9’s Motion for Reconsideration before the NLRC was denied.
Following these decisions, respondent RPN-9 filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which led to the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

December 11, 2006: The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of the NLRC ruling for 60 days.
The 60-day period lapsed without the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, allowing the NLRC decision to lapse into finality.

May 27, 2006: The decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala, as affirmed by the NLRC, became final and executory.
July 19, 2006: Entry of Judgment was made.
October 30, 2006 – May 7, 2007: Subsequent motions for issuance of the writ of execution were granted, and the monetary award was satisfied by deposit through a Banco de Oro check.

After the satisfaction of the original monetary award, on September 11, 2007, De Ocampo filed a Motion for Recompute of the Monetary Award with a Motion to Issue Alias Writ of Execution, seeking an additional sum for backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, and accrued interest.
December 13, 2007: The Executive Labor Arbiter denied this Motion on the ground that the prior decision had become final and executory.
Later, the NLRC sustained the Arbiter’s decision and further denied the Motion for Reconsideration in its December 15, 2008 Resolution.

De Ocampo then elevated the issue by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The petition prayed for the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ March 5, 2010 Decision and July 8, 2010 Resolution, and sought recomputation of the monetary award.

Despite her claims, after the initial award and decisions, petitioner did not timely file the appropriate remedies to challenge the computation before her award attained finality.
Petitioner’s subsequent motions—for instance, the Motion to Release and later the Motion to Recompute—demonstrated her acceptance of the original award while also attempting to modify it later.
By not pursuing any appeal or petition during the prescribed period, petitioner effectively acquiesced to the finality of the decision.

Whether petitioner Melanie E. De Ocampo is entitled to a recomputation and increase of her monetary award after the decision has attained finality and executory force.

Does the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure stay or affect the final judgment?
Can a decision that has become final and executory be revisited or modified based solely on a claim of inadequate computation of monetary awards?
Whether petitioner’s inaction and subsequent acceptance of the judgment preclude her from asserting a right to alter the computed amounts.