G.R. No. L-49336 - Province of Abra vs. Herdo

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49336)

Procedural History and Relief Sought

Labor Arbiter rendered a decision (May 10, 1979) finding illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement within ten days and full back wages from dismissal to reinstatement. NLRC affirmed the award in toto on August 29, 1980. The petitioner filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution on March 11, 1989. The Executive Labor Arbiter granted execution (June 26, 1989) requiring payment of P205,207.42; garnishment followed (July 12, 1989). NLRC later set aside those execution orders (September 11, 1989), holding the motion for execution time-barred and upholding two quitclaims signed by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the NLRC decision before the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court denied the petition.

Relevant Dates

Dismissal: November 28, 1978 (date of illegal dismissal as stated).
Labor Arbiter decision: May 10, 1979.
NLRC affirmation: August 29, 1980.
First compromise agreement: September 16, 1980 (petitioner waived reinstatement and accepted P14,000).
Employment at Tito Rey Restaurant: October 1982 – March 1987.
Re-employment at CDCP/PNCC as xerox machine operator: March 16, 1987.
Petition to recognize NLRC rights as invalid waiver: June 27, 1988.
Second payment and quitclaim: November 10, 1988 (acceptance of P9,544 and executed quitclaim).
Motion for execution filed: March 11, 1989.
Executive Labor Arbiter writ of execution: June 26, 1989.
Garnishment: July 12, 1989.
NLRC decision setting aside execution: September 11, 1989.
Supreme Court decision: June 22, 1990.

Applicable Law and Authorities Cited

1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as decision date is 1990).
Sec. 6, Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court: execution by motion may be made within five (5) years from entry or from when judgment becomes final and executory; after lapse, execution must be by action.
Article 224, Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715: the Secretary, Regional Director, Commission, or Labor Arbiter may issue writ of execution on a judgment within five (5) years from its becoming final and executory.
Lancita v. Magbanua (7 SCRA 42) — cited for exception allowing execution beyond five years when execution was previously withheld in the interest of the debtor and the judgment is wholly unpaid.
Article 223, Labor Code: discussed in relation to supersedeas bond requirement (court noted bond applies to appeals with monetary awards, not to orders enforcing rather than appealing a decision).
Jurisprudence on back pay limitation to three years from illegal dismissal was cited (cases in the record listed in the decision).

Factual Findings Relevant to Timeliness and Waiver

After finality of the NLRC decision (August 29, 1980), petitioner did not promptly demand reinstatement or pursue execution within the five-year period.
Petitioner entered into a compromise agreement (September 1980) accepting P14,000 and expressly waiving reinstatement and other claims.
Petitioner obtained other employment (kitchen dispatcher at Tito Rey, Oct 1982–Mar 1987) with salary higher than prior CDCP salary, and later accepted re-employment at CDCP/PNCC on March 16, 1987 as xerox machine operator.
Petitioner accepted an additional payment of P9,544 on November 10, 1988 and executed a second quitclaim acknowledging full satisfaction and expressly waiving reinstatement and any further claims, including admitting delay in reinstatement was due to her own fault.

Issue Presented

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion (and whether the Supreme Court should grant relief) by denying execution on motion filed beyond the five-year period and by holding that the petitioner’s quitclaims validly settled and extinguished further relief.

Court’s Analysis — Timeliness of Execution

The Court applied Sec. 6, Rule 39 and Article 224 of the Labor Code: execution by motion is allowed only within five years from the date the judgment becomes final and executory. The petitioner’s motion for execution was filed nearly nine years after finality of the NLRC decision (final August 29, 1980; execution motion March 11, 1989). The petitioner invoked Lancita v. Magbanua to argue an exception to the five-year rule when execution was withheld in the interest of the debtor; however, the record contravened the petitioner’s contention that respondents delayed execution. Instead, the record showed petitioner herself delayed action, accepted compromise settlement(s), and did not demand reinstatement within the reglementary period. Thus, the NLRC properly ruled the motion for execution time-barred. The Court emphasized that statutes of limitation do not penalize those unable to act but are enforced against those who fail to act — here, petitioner “dilly-dallied.”

Court’s Analysis — Validity and Effect of Quitclaims/Compromises

The Court examined the two compromise/quitclaim instruments. It reiterated the established rule: waivers and quitclaims will be respected where entered voluntarily, with understanding of their terms, and where the consideration is reasonable; they are invalid only if procured by fraud, undue influence, or are unconscionable. Here, evidence showed petitioner voluntarily signed a compromise in 1980 accepting cash in lieu of reinstatement, and later accepted additional payment and signed an unequivocal quitclaim in 1988. The 1988 quitclaim expressly acknowledged receipt of P9,544, stated that the payment fully satisfied all claims under the NLRC case, expressly waived reinstatement and certified that the delay in reinstatement was due to her own fault. The petitioner’s subsequent repudiation of both instruments — after having accepted the consideration and later obtained enhanced salary and other benefits from PNCC — was inconsistent and unsupported by proof of fraud or unconscionability. The Court thus affirmed NLRC’s finding that the quitclaims were valid and binding.

Court’s Analysis — Back Pay Computation and Emplo

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-49336)

Facts of the Case

Petitioner Corazon Periquet was dismissed as toll collector by the Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP, later Philippine National Construction Corporation, PNCC) for alleged willful breach of trust and unauthorized possession of accountable toll tickets purportedly found in her purse during a surprise inspection.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter (Labor Arbiter Mirasol Corleto) rendered a decision dated May 10, 1979, sustaining the complaint and ordering reinstatement within ten days "without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and with full back wages to be computed from the date of her actual dismissal up to the date of her actual reinstatement."
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), First Division, affirmed the labor arbiter's order in toto on August 29, 1980.
Petitioner later entered into a compromise agreement with CDCP in which she waived her right to reinstatement and accepted PHP14,000.00 representing back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of that agreement.
After the compromise agreement, petitioner obtained employment as kitchen dispatcher at Tito Rey Restaurant from October 1982 to March 1987, certified to have received a monthly compensation of PHP1,904.00 (higher than her CDCP salary).
Petitioner applied for re-employment with CDCP and was re-employed on March 16, 1987 as a xerox machine operator with a basic salary of PHP1,030.00 plus PHP461.33 in allowances, totaling PHP1,491.33 monthly.
On June 27, 1988, petitioner wrote the new management of CDCP (now PNCC) claiming the August 29, 1980 decision rights should be recognized and asserting the earlier waiver was invalid.
On September 19, 1988, PNCC’s Corporate Legal Counsel recommended payment of PHP9,544.00 to petitioner as the balance of her back pay for three years at PHP654.00 per month, less the previously paid PHP14,000.00.
On November 10, 1988, petitioner accepted PHP9,544.00 and signed a Quitclaim and Release acknowledging receipt of that sum "in full satisfaction of all my claims/demands in the aforesaid case," waiving reinstatement, admitting delay in reinstatement was due to her own fault, and releasing the corporation and its officers from all claims relative to NLRC Case No. AB-2-864-79. The quitclaim was executed in Mandaluyong on November 10, 1988.
On November 24, 1988, petitioner sent a memorandum to PNCC Corporate Legal Counsel expressing gratitude and stating she was occupying the xerox machine operator position with a monthly salary of PHP2,014.00; thereafter PNCC adjusted her monthly salary to PHP3,588.00 after inquiries about longevity pay and other benefits.
On March 11, 1989, petitioner filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution of the NLRC decision (the motion now at issue).
The executive labor arbiter granted the motion in an order dated June 26, 1989, ordering payment to petitioner of PHP205,207.42 "by way of implementing the balance of the judgment amount."
The NLRC sheriff garnished said amount on July 12, 1989.
On September 11, 1989, the NLRC sustained CDCP’s appeal, set aside the order dated June 20, 1989, the writ of execution dated June 26, 1989, and the notice of garnishment, ruling the motion for execution was time‑barred and upholding the validity of the two quitclaims signed by petitioner.
Petitioner filed the present petition to assail the NLRC decision as tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Procedural History

Labor Arbiter decision: May 10, 1979 (Labor Arbiter Mirasol Corleto) — ordered reinstatement and back wages.
NLRC affirmation: August 29, 1980 (NLRC, First Division) — affirmed labor arbiter in toto.
Compromise agreement with CDCP: petitioner accepted PHP14,000.00 and waived reinstatement (date referenced as September 16, 1980 by the Court).
Re-employment with CDCP/PNCC: March 16, 1987 as xerox machine operator.
Corporate Legal Counsel recommendation: September 19, 1988 to pay PHP9,544.00 balance.
Second Quitclaim and Release executed: November 10, 1988 (receipt of PHP9,544.00 and full settlement acknowledgment).
Motion for execution filed: March 11, 1989.
Executive labor arbiter’s execution order: June 26, 1989 (payment of PHP205,207.42).
Garnishment by NLRC sheriff: July 12, 1989.
NLRC decision setting aside execution and garnishment: September 11, 1989 (penned by Encarnacion, Presiding Commissioner; Commissioners Bonto‑Perez and Maglaya concurring).
Present petition to the Supreme Court culminating in this Decision (June 22, 1990).

Issues Presented

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding the motion for execution filed by petitioner on March 11, 1989 was time‑barred under the five‑year limitation for execution by motion.
Whether the quitclaims and compromise agreements signed by petitioner, which waived reinstatement and acknowledged full settlement, are valid and binding.
Whether petitioner is entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal (November 28, 1978) up to the date of alleged reinstatement (claimed March 16, 1987).
Whether Article 223 of the Labor Code was violated when the private respondent did not file a supersedeas bond.

Applicable Legal Provisions and Precedent Cited

Section 6, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court:
- "A judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final a