GR 107014; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107014 ; April 12, 2000
CHONA P. TORRES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER DANIEL C. CUETO, NLRC CASHIER, (E & R SECURITY AGENCY, INC. and/or MRS. ENEIDA MONILLA), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Chona P. Torres was hired as a security guard by respondent E & R Security Agency. During a meeting on October 27, 1989, she made loud remarks accusing agency officers of dishonesty regarding a wage increase. She was subsequently suspended and later reassigned. When she failed to report to her new assignment, the agency terminated her for abandonment. Torres filed complaints for illegal suspension, dismissal, and wage underpayment.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in Torres’s favor, declaring her dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages and salary differentials. The NLRC denied the agency’s appeal due to its failure to post an appeal bond, rendering the decision final and executory. An alias writ of execution was issued, and a garnishment order was served on the agency’s bank account.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its resolution that effectively stayed the execution of a final and executory judgment.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes the ministerial duty of the court or tribunal to issue a writ of execution. Execution may only be refused on equitable grounds, such as a supervening event that renders execution unjust or impossible.
The respondent agency’s claim of a change in situation—that Torres had accepted employment elsewhere—was invalid. The Court explicitly ruled that earnings derived by an illegally dismissed employee from other employment during the period of illegal dismissal do not reduce or diminish the award of backwages. This abandoned the previous contrary rule. Consequently, no equitable ground existed to stay the execution. The NLRC’s order directing the Labor Arbiter to resolve a motion to quash the writ, despite the finality of judgment and the absence of a valid supervening event, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The Court granted the petition and ordered the immediate release of the garnished award to the petitioner.