Title
SGS Far East Ltd. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 123944
Decision Date
Feb 12, 1998
A labor dispute arose over SGS Far East Ltd.'s alleged violations of a 1982 compromise agreement, leading to claims of underpayment and wrongful dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled the NLRC erred in dismissing SGS's appeal, remanding the case due to alleged variations in the execution of the original judgment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170195)

Background of the Case

On February 2, 1982, a labor complaint was filed against SGS Far East Ltd. concerning allegations of underpayment of wages and violations of labor standard laws. This complaint was logged under NLRC Case No. NCR-2-2095-82, initiated by PSSLU alongside thirteen members. A resolution was reached through a compromise agreement on August 4, 1982, affirming the regular employment status of the complainants and entailing a settlement of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00), which was to be paid in two installments. The labor case was subsequently dismissed.

Initial Filings and Complications

Three years later, on August 16, 1985, four members of the union filed a motion claiming that SGS had failed to honor the terms of the compromise agreement, thereby denying them work and not fulfilling their rights under applicable legal frameworks. SGS countered this motion by asserting that the jurisdiction did not rest with Labor Arbiter Emerson Tumanon regarding issues not covered by the earlier compromise agreement.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

On February 6, 1989, Labor Arbiter Tumanon ruled in favor of the four complainants, ordering the payment of ₱80,517.72 in accumulated dues and reinstatement with back wages, reflecting unjust discrimination in promotions and employment. SGS then appealed this decision to the NLRC, which had a conflicting ruling.

NLRC Decisions and Supreme Court Involvement

The NLRC reversed Labor Arbiter Tumanon’s decision on August 8, 1991, claiming lack of jurisdiction over the matter and suggesting that the complainants should pursue a new case. The complainants then sought recourse through the Supreme Court. On March 23, 1994, the Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, affirming his jurisdiction over the claims and emphasizing that the compromise agreement covered future claims stemming from its terms.

Execution of Judgment

After the Supreme Court’s decision, the case was handed to Labor Arbiter Valentin C. Reyes for execution, where a significant discrepancy arose regarding the monetary awards calculated. While the complainants calculated their award to exceed ₱4,806,052.41, SGS calculated it to be merely ₱298,552.48. On October 18, 1994, Arbiter Reyes deemed the complainants' computation as correct and issued an order for execution.

Appeal and NLRC Stance

SGS's subsequent appeal contesting the execution order was dismissed by the NLRC on December 11, 1995. The NLRC maintained that after a decision has become final, execution is a ministerial duty, denying SGS's appeal based on the established principle that an execution order can only be contested via a valid writ of injunction.

Supreme Court's Final Ruling

Challenging this dismissal, SGS filed a petition, asserting the NLRC exe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.