G.R. No. L-40706 February 16, 1978
DANAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOSUE DE JOSE, in his capacity as Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL FREE LABORERS ASSOCIATION (NOFLA-ALU), ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The defunct Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) found Danao Development Corporation guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered the reinstatement with back wages of 119 dismissed employees. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. An initial writ of execution for reinstatement was issued but the sheriff reported he could not effect it, noting only 70 of the 119 claimants were available and 15 were deceased. Upon the CIR’s abolition, jurisdiction over the back wage award transferred to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, based on a partial computation report from a former CIR examiner, issued an alias writ of execution and garnished the petitioner’s bank account for a lump sum representing the total back wages for all 119 claimants.
Danao Development Corporation filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the writ of execution and garnishment. The petitioner contended the decision was not yet final for execution because the exact amounts due to each individual claimant had not been judicially determined with finality. It argued that the NLRC’s act of issuing a writ based on a partial, unverified report, and for a lump sum covering even deceased and unavailable claimants, constituted a grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writ of execution and garnishment for a lump sum of back wages without first making a final, accurate, and individualized determination of the amounts due to each entitled claimant.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the alias writ and garnishment. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a writ of execution must conform to the definitive and final judgment it seeks to enforce. The final judgment in this case ordered reinstatement with back wages for the individual complainants. However, the specific monetary award for each person was not liquidated in the judgment; it required a separate proceeding for computation.
The Court ruled that the NLRC’s issuance of the writ based on a mere partial and unverified report was premature. A computation of back wages is not a simple ministerial act but a quasi-judicial function that necessitates a hearing to ascertain facts such as each worker’s exact period of unemployment, interim earnings from other employment (which must be deducted), and specific daily wage rate. The NLRC’s order for a lump-sum payment to be held in trust by the union and its lawyer, without requiring individual receipts from the actual claimants, was especially erroneous. It violated the doctrine that back wage awards are personal to each employee and satisfaction of the judgment requires their personal acknowledgment.
The Supreme Court, to avoid further delay, itself determined the formula for computation: back wages at P8.00 daily for the number of days each claimant typically worked per year for three years, including customary bonuses and benefits. It ordered the petitioner to pay the individual complainants accordingly, emphasizing the duty of both management and laborers to cooperate in the accurate and expedient liquidation of the awards.