G.R. No. 113592 January 15, 1998
INDUSTRIAL AND TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT, INC. and/or ANTONIO JARINA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and LEOPOLDO MEDRANO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Leopoldo Medrano was employed as a mechanic by petitioner Industrial and Transport Equipment Inc. (INTECO) from November 1974. On May 31, 1990, he was granted an indefinite leave of absence, during which he secured a temporary job elsewhere. Upon reporting for work on June 18, 1990, a supervisor confronted him for working for another firm, asked him to resign, and on July 2, 1990, he was not allowed to enter the company premises as his services were allegedly terminated. Medrano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II rendered a decision on March 27, 1991, ordering INTECO to reinstate Medrano to his former position without backwages and to pay him his proportionate 13th month pay for 1990. This decision became final and executory after petitioner failed to appeal. A writ of execution was issued. While the 13th month pay was settled, the reinstatement order remained unsatisfied. Consequently, Medrano filed a motion to cite petitioner for indirect contempt and for payment of backwages. The Labor Arbiter found petitioner guilty of indirect contempt, fined it P100.00, and ordered Medrano’s reinstatement with backwages from July 11, 1991. The NLRC affirmed this order. Petitioner INTECO now seeks to set aside the NLRC decision, claiming it had reinstated Medrano on April 15, 1991, and that Medrano subsequently abandoned his work.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission correctly affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s order finding petitioner guilty of indirect contempt and ordering the reinstatement of private respondent with backwages.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the February 23, 1993 decision of the NLRC, with the modification that the award of backwages be DELETED. The Court held that disobedience or resistance to a lawful order of a court constitutes indirect contempt. It found petitioner’s claim of having reinstated Medrano on April 15, 1991, to be implausible, as petitioner received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision only on April 18, 1991. Furthermore, Medrano’s act of filing a motion for execution of the reinstatement order was incompatible with an intention to abandon his job. The Court noted that the original Labor Arbiter decision, which became final and executory, erroneously omitted an award of backwages, as an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages under Article 279 of the Labor Code. However, since the decision had become final and executory due to neither party appealing it, the Court was constrained to uphold it, citing the doctrine that a final and executory judgment can no longer be altered except for clerical errors or if the judgment is void.