G.R. Nos. 74151-54 April 10, 1989
SUPERCARS, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, UNION DE IMPRESORES DE FILIPINAS (UIF), ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from complaints for unfair labor practice filed by private respondents against petitioner Supercars, Inc. The Regional Director initially ordered the reinstatement of the employees with full backwages. On appeal, the Minister of Labor and Employment modified this order in a decision dated August 1, 1983, directing reinstatement but specifically without backwages. Supercars received this order on August 22, 1983, and filed a motion for reconsideration on September 5, 1983. The employees reported for work but were refused entry. The motion for reconsideration was denied on April 6, 1984, and the employees were eventually reinstated on August 20, 1984.
Subsequently, the employees filed a motion before the Regional Director claiming backwages for the period from September 2, 1983, to August 19, 1984, arguing that Supercars unlawfully refused reinstatement after receiving the August 1, 1983, order. The Regional Director granted this motion, awarding backwages on the grounds that the decision was immediately executory and Supercars violated it by not reinstating the employees within the ten-day period specified. This order was affirmed by the Minister of Labor. Supercars filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the award improperly modified the final August 1, 1983, order which granted reinstatement without backwages.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Director and the Minister of Labor acted with grave abuse of discretion in awarding backwages for the period of delay in reinstatement, despite the final August 1, 1983, order which granted reinstatement specifically without backwages.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the assailed orders. The legal logic is anchored on the finality and specific terms of the August 1, 1983, order from the Minister of Labor. That order was clear and categorical: it directed reinstatement “without backwages.” This decision had become final and executory. The subsequent award of backwages by the Regional Director for the period of delayed reinstatement effectively modified this final order, which is beyond the authority of a Regional Director executing a final judgment. An execution must conform to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed; it cannot vary or expand the judgment.
Furthermore, while the Court recognized that decisions in unfair labor practice cases ordering reinstatement are immediately executory under Article 223 of the Labor Code, the delay in enforcement could not be solely attributed to Supercars. The private respondents, despite knowing the immediately executory nature of the order, did not proactively move for the issuance of a writ of execution during the pendency of Supercars’ motion for reconsideration. The writ was issued by the Regional Director motu proprio only much later. Following the precedent in National Steel Corporation vs. NLRC, the Court held it would be unjust to penalize the employer for the consequences of the employees’ inaction in enforcing their right to immediate reinstatement. The liability for backwages was extinguished by the final order granting reinstatement without them.