G.R. No. 188233; June 29, 2010
QUERUBIN L. ALBA and RIZALINDA D. DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, vs. ROBERT L. YUPANGCO, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Querubin Alba and Rizalinda De Guzman filed complaints for illegal dismissal and payment of benefits against Y.L. Land Corporation and Ultra Motors Corporation, respectively, impleading respondent Robert Yupangco as President of both corporations. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners in a Decision dated October 25, 1999, ordering the corporations to pay monetary awards. The decision became final and executory. Upon execution, the Labor Arbiter issued alias writs to levy on Yupangco’s personal property, ruling that as corporate president, he was jointly and severally liable with the corporations for the obligations.
Respondent Yupangco challenged the execution, arguing that the final Labor Arbiter decision did not expressly hold him solidarily liable with the corporate entities. He contended that execution against his personal assets beyond a presumptive one-third share varied the judgment. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC upheld the execution, citing doctrine on personal liability of corporate officers. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the execution against Yupangco beyond a one-third share constituted grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in enforcing the final judgment against respondent Yupangco on a solidary liability basis, despite the silence of the decision on the nature of his liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Labor Arbiter’s imposition of solidary liability upon Yupangco during execution proceedings improperly modified the final and executory decision of October 25, 1999. A final judgment can only be executed as rendered, and the executing court cannot amend its terms. The decision contained no finding that Yupangco acted with malice or bad faith, which is a requisite under jurisprudence (MAM Realty Development Corporation v. NLRC) to hold a corporate officer solidarily liable for corporate debts. Without such a finding, any liability could only be joint, not solidary.
The alias writ of execution, by enforcing a solidary obligation, varied the tenor of the final judgment and was therefore a nullity. The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim of laches against Yupangco, as a void execution order can be challenged at any time. The constitutional guarantee of due process protects a person from being deprived of property under a judgment that has been altered. Thus, the Labor Arbiter and NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in enforcing the writ against Yupangco’s personal property beyond the scope of the original decision.