G.R. No. 212111, January 15, 2020
Casilda D. Tan and/or C & L Lending Investor, Petitioners, vs. Luzvilla B. Dagpin, Respondent.

FACTS

The Labor Arbiter declared petitioners liable for the illegal dismissal of respondent and awarded monetary benefits. The NLRC dismissed petitioners’ appeal for failure to attach a certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). After the TRO expired, the Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) granted respondent’s motion for execution and awarded her a total of P1,005,146.83, which was fully satisfied by October 12, 2005. The CA later dismissed petitioners’ certiorari petition, and the Supreme Court denied their subsequent Petition for Review, which became final on August 21, 2008. Respondent then filed a new motion for execution, seeking additional monetary awards computed up to August 21, 2008. The ELA denied this motion, ruling respondent was estopped from claiming further increments. Respondent, through a new counsel (Atty. Rosal), appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the appeal as filed out of time, reckoning the appeal period from respondent’s personal receipt of the ELA’s order on March 19, 2009, not from her counsel’s receipt. The CA reversed the NLRC, ruling that service of the order directly on respondent was not proper service under the law, and thus the appeal period did not commence from her receipt. On the merits, the CA held respondent was entitled to a recomputation of benefits up to August 21, 2008.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent’s appeal to the NLRC was timely filed.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent is entitled to a recomputation and increase of the monetary awards already paid to her.

RULING

1. On the timeliness of the appeal: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. Under the Rules of Court, if a party appears by counsel, service of notices must be made upon the counsel of record, unless service upon the party is ordered by the court. Service on the party is not legally effective and does not bind the party or start the reglementary period. Here, respondent’s original counsel (Atty. Carin) had not formally withdrawn, and a new counsel (Atty. Rosal) had entered his appearance. The ELA’s order was addressed to respondent “c/o Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal,” indicating acknowledgment of him as counsel. However, it was served directly on respondent. This was improper service. Therefore, the reglementary period for appeal did not commence from respondent’s receipt. The appeal was thus timely filed.
2. On the recomputation of monetary awards: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred. The principle of immutability of final judgments applies. The Labor Arbiter’s decision, as affirmed by the NLRC’s final Resolution (which became final on January 10, 2005), had already been executed in full. Respondent received full payment of the awarded amount computed up to January 10, 2005. A recomputation to extend the benefits up to August 21, 2008 would constitute an alteration of a final and executed judgment, which is prohibited. The subsequent finality of the Supreme Court’s resolution in the separate certiorari proceeding (G.R. No. 182268) did not revive or modify the already executed judgment in the main illegal dismissal case. Therefore, respondent was not entitled to additional benefits.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition was PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were MODIFIED, and the Executive Labor Arbiter’s Order dated February 19, 2009, denying respondent’s motion for additional monetary awards, was REINSTATED.