G.R. No. 198423 - Gonzales vs. Solid Cement Corp.

Petitioner Leo A. Gonzales initiated the dispute against Solid Cement Corporation and Allen Querubin over his termination, which he alleged was an illegal dismissal.
The case originally arose from Gonzales’ termination in October 1999 and his subsequent reinstatement orders following labor tribunal findings.

December 12, 2000: The Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Gonzales was illegally dismissed and ordered his reinstatement with full backwages, seniority, and other benefits.
January 22, 2001: Solid Cement reinstated Gonzales on the payroll, following the LA’s ruling.
The case was pursued on the merits through various forums:

It was first appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Thereafter, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The NLRC modified the LA’s execution order by including additional monetary benefits (such as salary differentials, 13th month pay differentials, and legal interest) while the CA later set aside that modification and reverted to the LA’s original computation.
The original case eventually reached the Supreme Court (SC), which affirmed the merits of the LA’s decision, rendering the judgment final and executory in favor of Gonzales.
Post finality, Gonzales moved for execution:

On August 4, 2008, he filed a motion for an alias writ of execution that computed various award components.
The LA, in an order dated August 18, 2009, approved a computation totaling P965,014.15, incorporating specific items such as rice allowance and medical reimbursement.

An NLRC decision (February 19, 2010) modifying the LA’s order to include additional benefits like additional backwages, salary differentials (up to August 2008), 13th month pay for 2000–2001, and 12% legal interest from the judgment’s finality.
The CA, in May 2011, reversed the NLRC’s modified computation and reinstated the LA’s original execution order.

In view of these developments, Gonzales later filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA’s action, which had been denied by the Court’s Minute Resolutions on November 16, 2011, and February 27, 2012.
He then filed a second motion for reconsideration, asking that the case be referred to the Court En Banc.

The CA’s subsequent ruling effectively deleted some of these awards by reverting to the LA’s original order, creating a conflict over the proper computation during execution.

The CA’s deletion of awards that had been properly granted by the NLRC;
The CA’s jurisdiction to vary a final and executory judgment which had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The petition raises issues regarding the proper computation of benefits during the execution stage and questions the applicability of the immutability principle in light of alleged jurisdictional overreach.

Whether the CA acted outside its jurisdiction by deleting and varying the awards (including salary differentials, 13th month pay, and additional backwages) previously determined by the NLRC and LA.
Whether such an act constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to a violation of the final and executory nature of the judgment.

Whether a second motion for reconsideration is permissible under the Rules of Court considering the finality of the judgment and the general prohibition against a second plea for reconsideration.
Whether the exceptions (like clerical errors or nunc pro tunc corrections) can apply to justify reopening the case on a second motion for reconsideration.

Whether the re-computation of backwages and the inclusion of additional monetary awards (such as the 13th month pay and legal interest) alter the finality of the judgment.
The proper scope of benefits to be included in the final executed award given the elapsed time between the original LA decision and full payment.