GR 112955; (September, 1997) (Digest)
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
Petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Employees Association filed a complaint in 1987 against Aboitiz Shipping Corporation (ASC) for non-compliance with mandated wage orders. The DOLE Regional Director, after inspection, ordered ASC to pay the employees P1,350,828.00 as underpayment. ASC’s appeal to the Secretary of Labor was dismissed. ASC then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Regional Director’s order with a minor modification. The Supreme Court’s Resolution denying ASC’s motion for reconsideration became final and executory on July 25, 1991.
Following the finality of the judgment, petitioner moved for an alias writ of execution before the Regional Director, which was granted. However, ASC appealed this order of execution. Public Respondent Undersecretary of Labor set aside the execution order and created a Special Committee to recompute ASC’s liability. The Committee, reviewing ASC’s newly submitted payrolls, reduced the award from P1,350,828.00 to P209,183.42, which the Undersecretary approved. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, arguing the order was final and unappealable, was denied.
ISSUE
Whether public respondent Undersecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying a final and executory judgment of the Regional Director, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, by reducing the monetary award based on a recomputation.
RULING
Yes, public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of finality of judgment. The Supreme Court had already affirmed with finality the Regional Director’s award of P1,350,828.00. A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable. Exceptions to this rule are strictly limited, such as the correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, or when the judgment is void. The circumstance that new evidence (company payrolls) was presented during the execution stage does not warrant alteration. The rule allowing modification due to supervening events rendering execution unjust applies only to facts occurring after finality, not to evidence that could have been presented during the original proceedings.
Here, ASC had ample opportunity to present its payroll evidence during the initial hearings but failed to do so. Public respondent’s act of substantially reducing the final award based on a re-evaluation of this evidence constituted a grave abuse of discretion, as it effectively reopened and altered a settled judgment. The Supreme Court reinstated the Regional Director’s order for issuance of the alias writ of execution to enforce the original final award.