Case Digest (G.R. No. 201483)
Facts:
Conrado A. Lim v. HMR Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 201483, August 04, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Conrado A. Lim filed on February 8, 2001 a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against HMR Philippines, Inc. and its officers Teresa G. Santos‑Castro, Henry G. Bunag and Nelson S. Camiller. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. On April 11, 2003 the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR No. 02‑00926‑01 reversed the Labor Arbiter, declared Lim illegally dismissed, ordered his immediate reinstatement and directed the NLRC Computation and Research Unit (CRU) to compute backwages “reckoned from his dismissal on February 3, 2001 up to the promulgation of this Decision” and the 10% annual increase from 1998–2000.Both Lim and HMR filed certiorari petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. SP Nos. 80379 and 80630, consolidated). The CA issued a TRO enjoining execution and on November 15, 2005 affirmed the NLRC decision with modification, awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. HMR’s petition to the Court in G.R. Nos. 175950‑51 was dismissed on February 7, 2007 with entry of judgment on July 27, 2007.
Lim moved for execution on September 24, 2007. The NLRC CRU computed an award on November 28, 2007 that reckoned backwages up to October 31, 2007 (date of actual reinstatement). HMR objected that backwages should be computed only up to April 11, 2003 as stated in the NLRC fallo, and that the 10% increases should be limited to 1998–2000. On April 21, 2009 the Labor Arbiter granted execution but computed backwages only to April 11, 2003 and set the base pay and other items, yielding a total for execution; Lim moved for recomputation/ad cautelam.
On August 28, 2009 the NLRC treated Lim’s motion as an appeal and sustained the Labor Arbiter’s computation. Lim filed a petition for certiorari with the CA; the CA in its March 30, 2012 Decision (CA‑G.R. SP No. 112708) dismissed the petition, holding the dispositive portion (fallo) controls and finality barred recomputation beyond promulgation. Lim then filed this Rule 45 petition befor...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were Lim’s motions for reconsideration and ad cautelam/appeal belatedly filed (procedural timeliness)?
- Should backwages be computed only up to the NLRC’s promulgation date (April 11, 2003) as stated in the fallo, or up to Lim’s actual reinstatement?
- Is Lim entitled to the unpaid 10% annual salary increases for 1998–2000 and to salary increases beyond 2000 as part of backwages?
- Is Lim entitled to holiday pay and to conversion of unused sick leave into cash?
- Are additional moral and exemplary damages proper for delay, and should legal...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)