G.R. No. 112955 September 1, 1997
ABOITIZ SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. HON. UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, CRESENCIANO TRAJANO and DIRECTOR BERNARDINO JULVE, respondents.

FACTS

In 1987, petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Employees Association filed a complaint against Aboitiz Shipping Corporation (ASC) for non-compliance with minimum wage laws and wage orders. The NCR Regional Director of DOLE, after inspection and evaluation, ordered ASC to pay the complainants the total amount of P1,350,828.00 representing underpayment of a daily allowance and to continue paying the deficiency until compliance. ASC’s appeal and motion for reconsideration to the Secretary of Labor were dismissed. On petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the Regional Director’s order with a minor modification. ASC’s motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on July 25, 1991. Petitioner then filed a motion for an alias writ of execution before the Regional Director, which was granted. However, on ASC’s appeal, public respondent Secretary of Labor set aside the execution order and created a Special Committee to recompute ASC’s liability. The Committee, considering newly adduced evidence from ASC, submitted a report reducing the award to P209,183.42, which the public respondent approved. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, arguing that the execution order was not appealable and that the final award could not be modified, was denied.

ISSUE

Whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the final and executory decision of the Regional Director awarding petitioner the sum of P1,350,828.00.

RULING

Yes, the petition is granted. The Supreme Court set aside the assailed orders of public respondent and reinstated the Regional Director’s resolution ordering the issuance of an alias writ of execution. The Court held that ASC’s liability had been settled and affirmed by the Supreme Court in a previous decision, making the judgment final and executory. The rule allowing modification of a final judgment due to circumstances rendering its execution unjust or inequitable applies only to facts or circumstances arising after finality, not to evidence that could have been presented during the original proceedings. The Court reiterated the settled rule that a final and executory judgment can neither be amended nor altered except for correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, or if the judgment is void. The modification by public respondent, based on a re-evaluation of evidence ASC failed to earlier adduce, constituted grave abuse of discretion.