GR 102406; (June, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102406 June 17, 1994
SAMPAGUITA GARMENTS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) and EMILIA B. SANTOS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Emilia B. Santos, an employee of petitioner Sampaguita Garments Corporation, was alleged to have attempted to bring out a piece of cloth belonging to the company without authorization on April 14, 1987. The petitioner dismissed her on the ground of theft. Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter sustained the company, but the NLRC reversed this decision and ordered her reinstatement with back wages. This NLRC decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 89323 and became final and executory. Concurrently, the petitioner filed a criminal action for theft against Santos. She was found guilty by the Municipal Trial Court, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and ultimately by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 100929. After her conviction became final, Santos moved for the execution of the NLRC reinstatement order. The petitioner opposed, invoking her criminal conviction. The NLRC sustained Santos, prompting the petitioner to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the subsequent final conviction of an employee in a criminal prosecution for theft, which was the ground for her dismissal, affects the final and executory NLRC decision ordering her reinstatement with back wages.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petitioner’s plea. While the NLRC decision was final and executory, the subsequent conviction for theft constituted a supervening event that rendered its execution unjust and inequitable. The power of the NLRC to issue a writ of execution includes the authority to consider supervening events affecting such execution. The conviction affirmed the existence of a valid ground for dismissal (serious misconduct involving moral turpitude), thus removing the justification for reinstatement and the award of back wages. Following the doctrine in PLDT v. NLRC, separation pay is also not warranted for dismissal due to an offense involving moral turpitude like theft. However, for the petitioner’s failure to comply with procedural due process in effecting the dismissal, it was ordered to pay Santos an indemnity of P1,000.00. The order of execution was set aside.