G.R. No. 156668 ; November 23, 2007
KIMBERLY-CLARK (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR, AMBROCIO GRAVADOR, ET AL., and KILUSAN-OLALIA, and SHERIFF P. PAREDES, Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a 1986 certification election between two unions at Kimberly-Clark. Sixty-four ballots cast by casual workers were challenged and excluded. In a 1990 consolidated decision (G.R. Nos. 77629 & 78791), the Supreme Court ordered the counting of these 64 ballots and directed Kimberly to pay differential wages and benefits to workers who had been regularized from the time they attained such status. Execution of this decision was sought years later.
In 2000, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) found the physical counting of the 64 ballots moot and impossible but ordered the payment of differential pay. The Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC) identified 47 out of 76 complainants as entitled to regularization benefits. Kimberly contested this, arguing the 1990 decision only covered casuals with one year of service as of April 21, 1986. The DOLE denied Kimberly’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DOLE’s orders, leading Kimberly to elevate the case via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the DOLE’s orders for the payment of differential wages and benefits to the identified workers.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that the 1990 decision in G.R. Nos. 77629 & 78791 had long become final and executory. A final judgment is immutable and unalterable. The only task left for the DOLE was its execution, not a re-examination of the merits or a re-litigation of who exactly was entitled. The DOLE, through the BWC report, was merely implementing the final directive to identify regularized workers and compute their dues, a ministerial duty.
Kimberly’s argument—that the regularization and payment should be limited to a specific group—constituted a collateral attack on the final judgment, which is impermissible. The proper remedy for any perceived error in the 1990 decision was a timely appeal, not a challenge during execution years later. The findings of the DOLE, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, on the identities of the regularized employees and the computed benefits are factual in nature and, absent grave abuse of discretion, are accorded finality and respect. The petition raised no jurisdictional errors but merely disputed evidentiary assessments, which is insufficient for a Rule 45 review.