GR 109311; (June, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109311 June 17, 1997
ZENAIDA ASUNCION, petitioner, vs. HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, PRUDENCION AGBUYA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Prudencio Agbuya was employed as a designer by ABC Mirror Tower and Aluminum Supply (ABC), allegedly run by petitioner Zenaida Asuncion as general manager. Due to serious business reversal, ABC retrenched some employees, including Agbuya, who then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against both ABC and Asuncion. On March 11, 1991, Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera rendered a decision ordering the respondents to reinstate Agbuya to his former position with full backwages and to pay a salary differential. This decision became final and executory after petitioner failed to file an appeal within the reglementary period. Following a motion for execution, a writ was issued. After a levy on properties but before the auction sale, petitioner filed a motion to quash the writ, alleging that the levied properties were her own and that she was not the owner or part-owner of ABC and thus could not be held personally liable. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the motion and declared petitioner liable for one-half of the judgment award. The NLRC affirmed this order in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s order holding petitioner personally liable for the judgment award and denying her motion to quash the writ of execution, despite her claims of lack of due process and that the decision was void for lack of legal foundation.
RULING
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the questioned order and the NLRC decision. The Court held that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Petitioner’s failure to appeal the Labor Arbiter’s decision within the ten-day period rendered it final and executory, entitling the private respondent to its execution as a matter of right. A final and executory decision becomes the law of the case, whether erroneous or not, and can no longer be altered. The Court found petitioner’s claim of lack of due process due to improper summons unmeritorious, as records showed she was served with summons and filed an answer without disputing her inclusion as a respondent. The proper remedy for a decision perceived as void or lacking legal foundation is an appeal, which petitioner failed to undertake.