G.R. No. 172584 November 28, 2008
EDMUNDO Y. TORRES, JR. and MANUEL C. CASTELLANO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Edmundo Y. Torres, Jr. and Manuel C. Castellano, former Regional Sales Manager and District Sales Supervisor of respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC), were among employees who retired effective April 15, 1984 under SMC’s Retirement Plan. Believing they were constructively forced to retire, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in 1984. The Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaint in 1988. On appeal, the NLRC, in a Decision dated August 21, 1992, reversed in part, declaring petitioners to have been illegally dismissed and ordering their immediate reinstatement with payment of back salaries for three years, deducting the retirement pay they received. This NLRC Decision was affirmed in toto by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated July 23, 1998, which became final and executory on March 22, 1999. SMC partially complied by paying the monetary awards for three years’ back salaries. Petitioners later filed a Motion for Computation and Satisfaction of Back Salaries, praying for payment of much larger sums representing back salaries from September 9, 1992 up to November 1999, invoking the Supreme Court ruling in Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. NLRC. The Executive Labor Arbiter granted this motion. SMC appealed to the NLRC, which set aside the Labor Arbiter’s orders and declared petitioners not entitled to further backwages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Petitioners now argue before the Supreme Court that the Pioneer ruling has a curative effect entitling them to full back salaries from the time of the NLRC’s 1992 reinstatement order until actual reinstatement, and that they are still entitled to reinstatement as they have not been effectively retired.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are entitled to full back salaries beyond the three-year period awarded in the final and executory 1992 NLRC Decision, and whether reinstatement is still feasible.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that the 1992 NLRC Decision, as affirmed by the Court in 1998, had long become final and executory. The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment bars the re-litigation of the issue of back salaries, which was already limited to three years in that final judgment. The Court cannot modify a final judgment that has attained immutability. Regarding reinstatement, the Court found it was no longer feasible as petitioners had already reached retirement age under SMC’s valid Retirement Plan, which was acknowledged as a valid management prerogative. The Court modified the appellate decision, however, stating that petitioners should not be required to refund the salaries and benefits they already received pursuant to the reinstatement order, applying the doctrine of justice and equity as cited in Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora.