GR 178309; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178309, January 27, 2009.
AKLAN COLLEGE, INC., Petitioner, vs. PERPETUO ENERO, ARLYN CASTIGADOR, NUENA SERMON and JOCELYN ZOLINA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Aklan College, Inc. is an educational institution. Respondents were its high school teachers. On November 15, 16, 17, 1994 and January 6, 10, 11, 1995, high school students held mass actions/demonstrations at a public plaza opposite the school, with valid permits from the Mayor’s Office. Petitioner averred these were illegal strikes instigated by respondents due to personal grievances against the high school principal. After an administrative investigation, respondents were dismissed for causes under the Labor Code, the Education Act of 1982, and the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Respondents filed an illegal dismissal case, alleging the assemblies were peaceful student demonstrations and they did not instigate them. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding backwages, damages, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC reversed, finding the dismissal valid but still ordering petitioner to pay respondents’ 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. Respondents did not appeal the NLRC decision. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, challenging only the award of 13th month and service incentive leave pay. The CA denied the petition, upheld the awards, and modified the computation based on the respondents’ employment history.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s order for petitioner to pay respondents 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay despite their valid dismissal.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the monetary awards for 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay in favor of the non-appealing respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition.
On the first issue, the Court ruled that the propriety of the 13th month and service incentive leave pay awards is a factual issue. Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and not reviewable. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule. The awards were based on the respondents’ employment history and were benefits they had already earned and accrued prior to dismissal, which are not forfeited by a valid dismissal.
On the second issue, the Court held that the modification of the award by the Court of Appeals was proper. The CA’s recomputation was based on the evidence on record, specifically the respondents’ employment history, which petitioner itself submitted. A final and executory judgment can be amended or corrected for the purpose of executing it, and the CA’s modification was a necessary consequence of resolving the sole issue petitioner raised regarding the propriety of the awards. The CA did not grant additional relief to the non-appealing respondents but merely corrected the computation based on established facts.