G.R. No. 212111 - Tan vs. Dagpin

The Labor Arbiter declared petitioners Casilda D. Tan and/or C & L Lending Investor liable for the illegal dismissal of respondent Luzvilla B. Dagpin by Decision dated September 12, 2003, awarding separation pay, backwages, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which dismissed the appeal on July 29, 2004, for failure to attach the required certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 00038) before the Court of Appeals, which issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on January 11, 2005, preventing enforcement of the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Entry of Judgment on the NLRC Resolution was made on January 17, 2005. Respondent filed a Motion to Admit Computation and Issuance of Writ of Execution on March 29, 2005, computing her monetary claims up to January 10, 2005, totaling P1,080,566.66. Petitioners opposed.
After the TRO expired on May 17, 2005, the Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) ordered the release of a cash bond of P449,665.90 to respondent in partial satisfaction of the judgment. On May 19, 2005, the ELA granted the motion for execution and ordered payment of the remaining amount, concluding satisfaction as of October 12, 2005.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition on October 18, 2007, for lack of merit.
Petitioners’ petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied on June 23, 2008, final on August 21, 2008.

On November 3, 2008, respondent filed another Motion for Approval of Computation and Issuance of Writ of Execution seeking to compute benefits up to August 21, 2008, with a Manifestation submitted on November 12, 2008 seeking additional increments to the monetary award. Petitioners opposed.
At the December 16, 2008 hearing, respondent appeared without her original counsel Atty. Lawrence Carin (who had "suspended" himself from law practice and was attending to personal matters) and instead engaged Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal, who entered his appearance as her counsel.

On February 19, 2009, the ELA denied respondent’s motion for recomputation and issuance of writ of execution, ruling respondent was estopped from claiming increments because she already received full payment as of January 10, 2005.
Respondent appealed to the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal on August 27, 2009 for being filed out of time. The NLRC reckoned the appeal period from March 19, 2009 (date respondent received ELA Order) rather than March 30, 2009 (date Atty. Rosal received the order).
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied on October 30, 2009. She then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

On September 24, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed NLRC's dismissal, ruling the service on respondent herself was improper, thus the appeal was timely filed through counsel.
The CA ordered recomputation of monetary awards up to August 21, 2008—the date when the Supreme Court's resolution became final—and imposed 12% interest on the balance after deducting payments already received.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on March 26, 2014.
Petitioners filed the present petition seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ disposition, arguing improper application of compassionate justice regarding the late appeal and that recomputation violates the finality of judgment as the monetary award had already been fully paid.

Was the Court of Appeals correct in ruling that respondent’s appeal to the NLRC was timely filed despite the delay?
Was the Court of Appeals correct in ruling that respondent was entitled to a recomputation and increase of monetary awards already paid?