G.R. No. L-18270; November 28, 1962
SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC. and WERNER P. SCHETELIG, petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, KAPATIRANG MANGGAGAWA ASSOCIATION (NLU), respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Kapatirang Manggagawa Association (the Union) presented a petition for renewal of its collective bargaining agreement with petitioner San Pablo Oil Factory, Inc. (the Company) in February 1957. After negotiations failed, the Union filed a notice of strike, and the Company subsequently filed a notice of lockout. The Company declared a lockout against Union members on May 27, 1957. The Union then filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), seeking reinstatement and back wages. While the parties eventually signed a new collective bargaining agreement in September 1957, the unfair labor practice case proceeded.
After trial, the CIR initially dismissed the case. Upon the Union’s motion for reconsideration, the CIR en banc issued a resolution on October 29, 1958, finding the Company guilty of unfair labor practice. This resolution, however, did not award back wages to the locked-out workers. The Company’s appeal from this resolution was dismissed by the Supreme Court. More than eight months after the October 1958 resolution became final, the Union filed a motion with the CIR praying for an award of back wages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had the authority, under Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 , to issue its subsequent resolution awarding back wages, thereby modifying its prior final and executory resolution which found the company guilty of unfair labor practice but made no such award.

RULING

No. The CIR exceeded its authority. While Section 15 of Republic Act No. 875 entitles employees to back wages upon a finding of an illegal lockout, such relief must be expressly granted in the decision. The CIR’s October 1958 resolution, which became final, contained no award of back wages. The Union’s remedy was to seek reconsideration or appeal that omission; it did neither.
The Court held that the broad power of the CIR under Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 to alter or modify an award “at any time during its effectiveness” does not grant authority to reopen and alter issues already definitively passed upon after a decision has become final and executory. The provision allows reopening only on grounds arising after the rendition of the decision, not on grounds that were available and should have been raised during the original proceedings. To rule otherwise would sanction vexatious litigation and undermine the finality of judgments.
The Supreme Court distinguished the case from Luzon Brokerage Co., where a subsequent order merely implemented an existing back wage award by determining the precise computation. Here, there was no initial award to implement. Consequently, the CIR’s resolution awarding back wages was reversed for having been issued without jurisdiction.