GR 29068; (August, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29068. August 31, 1971.
EAST ASIATIC COMPANY, LTD., E. JAKOBSEN, P. SORENSEN and K. R. NIELSEN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, THE EAST ASIATIC CO. EMPLOYEES UNION (PTUC) and SOLEDAD A. DIZON, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Soledad A. Dizon was dismissed by petitioner East Asiatic Company on September 1, 1958. She filed an unfair labor practice case, and the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) ordered her reinstatement with back wages from her dismissal date until actual reinstatement. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-17037 on April 30, 1966. During execution proceedings before the CIR, a dispute arose over the computation of back wages. The company examiner computed back wages at P30,090.00 but also reported that Dizon had earned P42,881.44 from other employment during her layoff, which would entirely offset the back wages if deducted. The CIR, through Judge Tabigne, approved the back wage computation but disallowed the deduction of the P42,881.44 in outside earnings, reasoning that such deduction was not authorized by the final judgment which only ordered reinstatement with back wages.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations, in implementing a final and executory judgment ordering reinstatement with back wages, can deduct from the back wages the earnings of the employee from other employment during the period of illegal dismissal.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Industrial Relations can order such a deduction. The Supreme Court clarified that the principle of deducting outside earnings from back pay awards in unfair labor practice cases is a settled doctrine aimed at making the worker whole for lost earnings, not to grant a windfall. The final judgment in this case, which ordered reinstatement with back wages “from September 1, 1958 until actually reinstated,” must be interpreted and executed in light of this established legal principle. The Court held that while a final judgment is immutable as to its essence, the manner of its execution must conform to law and prevailing jurisprudence. The CIR, as a court of equity, possesses broad powers to determine all matters necessary to resolve the controversy, including the proper computation of back wages to achieve just and equitable results. Therefore, the CIR’s order disallowing any deduction was set aside. The case was remanded to the CIR with instructions to compute back wages inclusive of general increases and bonuses Dizon would have received, and to deduct her actual earnings from other employment during the layoff period, ensuring the deduction does not exceed what she would have earned from the company for the corresponding periods.