GR 180188; (March, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180188 March 25, 2009
C-E CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RAYMUNDO HERNANDEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner C-E Construction Corporation employed respondent Raymundo Hernandez as an electrician and carpenter on January 17, 1996, for its Filinvest Festival Supermall project, under an employment contract stating his employment was co-terminus with the project. On December 17, 1996, petitioner dismissed Hernandez, alleging the initial phase of the project was completed. Hernandez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Hernandez, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC partially reversed, deleting the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioner’s subsequent petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 144948), which was denied, and the decision became final and executory on February 9, 2001. Hernandez then filed an omnibus motion for recomputation of the judgment award and issuance of a writ of execution. The Labor Arbiter issued an order awarding additional backwages. Petitioner appealed this order to the NLRC, arguing that backwages should be limited to the unexpired portion of the project and that wages Hernandez could have earned should be deducted. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s order. Petitioner’s petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the computation of backwages for the illegally dismissed employee, Raymundo Hernandez, should be limited only to the unexpired portion of the project for which he was hired.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the final and executory judgment in the main case, which declared Hernandez’s dismissal illegal and ordered his reinstatement with backwages, may no longer be altered. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had ruled that Hernandez was a regular employee, a finding affirmed by the Court of Appeals and which attained finality upon the Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s earlier petition for review. The statement in the Court of Appeals’ decision referring to Hernandez as a project employee was considered an obiter dictum, as the dispositive portion affirmed the NLRC decision without modification. The writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter, which computed backwages beyond the project’s completion, was consistent with the final judgment declaring Hernandez a regular employee entitled to full backwages until actual reinstatement. The Court emphasized the doctrine of immutability of final judgments and that execution proceedings are part of the suit to enforce the final ruling, which cannot be reviewed or modified.