Facts:
Golden Ace Builders and its owner-manager,
Arnold U. Azul (petitioners), hired
Jose A. Talde (respondent) as a carpenter in 1990. In February 1999, Azul stopped assigning respondent work, allegedly due to the unavailability of construction projects, prompting respondent to file a complaint for
illegal dismissal. By Decision dated January 10, 2001, the Labor Arbiter ruled for respondent, ordering his immediate
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and ordering payment of
full backwages, then computed at
P144,382.23, plus
P3,236.37 representing premium pay for rest days, service incentive leave pay, and
thirteenth month pay. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, and while the appeal was pending and in compliance with the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, petitioners’ counsel advised respondent to report for work at the construction site within ten days from receipt. Respondent did not report; instead, on May 16, 2001, he submitted a manifestation stating that actual animosities existed between him and petitioners, that there were threats to his life, and that his family’s safety was at risk, and he opted for payment of
separation pay. Petitioners denied the existence of such animosity. The NLRC dismissed petitioners’ appeal by Resolution dated April 22, 2002, holding that respondent was a
regular employee and that there was no valid ground for termination. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on August 6, 2002, and their further appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed by Decision dated August 12, 2004, which became final on September 15, 2004. Because the parties could not agree on the satisfaction of the judgment, the case was referred to the Fiscal Examiner of the NLRC, which recomputed the amount due respondent at
P562,804.69; the Labor Arbiter approved this recomputation by Order dated July 5, 2005, and a writ of execution dated July 8, 2005 issued. Petitioners then moved to reconsider, asserting that since respondent refused to return to work, he should be deemed to have abandoned reinstatement and that backwages and benefits should not exceed May 15, 2001, the date of his manifestation. By Resolution dated March 9, 2006, the NLRC granted the motion and vacated the computation, reasoning that respondent did not appeal the Labor Arbiter’s Decision insofar as it granted only reinstatement and backwages (and not separation pay in lieu of reinstatement) and that, since he refused to go back to work, backwages could be recovered only up to May 20, 2001, the day respondent was supposed to return. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 30, 2006, prompting respondent to file a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On September 10, 2008, the Court of Appeals set aside the NLRC resolutions, ruling that respondent was entitled to both
backwages and separation pay, despite separation pay not being explicitly granted by the Labor Arbiter, due to
strained relations between the parties, and it computed full backwages as of June 30, 2005 at
P562,804.69 and awarded separation pay. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on March 12, 2009, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari, where petitioners challenged the appellate court’s award and computation of separation pay and also alleged that the computation of backwages effectively modified a final and executory decision.
Issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s original basis for the illegal dismissal remedies by awarding and computing
separation pay due to strained relations and by computing
backwages from the time of dismissal until reinstatement was rendered impossible.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: