G.R. No. L-74711 September 19, 1988
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PELAGIO REMOLADO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Pelagio Remolado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner National Steel Corporation. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision on October 30, 1980, ordering Remolado’s reinstatement to his former job but explicitly “without backwages.” Petitioner NSC appealed this NLRC decision to the Office of the President, which denied the appeal on October 13, 1983. Remolado was eventually reinstated and reported for work on February 13, 1984.
Subsequently, Remolado filed a motion for the execution of the NLRC decision, now seeking payment of backwages for the period from the receipt of the NLRC decision until his actual reinstatement. The Labor Arbiter granted this motion, awarding backwages. The NLRC affirmed this award in a resolution dated December 27, 1985, reasoning that NSC’s appeal to the Office of the President was filed with a “wrong agency” and did not toll the finality of its decision, making NSC liable for the earnings Remolado lost during the appeal’s pendency.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding backwages when its original decision explicitly ordered reinstatement “without backwages”; and (2) Whether petitioner NSC should be held liable for the delay in implementing the reinstatement order.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the NLRC resolution that awarded backwages. The Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed. The NLRC’s October 30, 1980 decision was clear and unambiguous: it ordered reinstatement “without backwages.” Any execution that grants backwages alters this definitive ruling and constitutes an act in excess of jurisdiction. The award, therefore, had no legal basis.
Furthermore, the Court found no justification to hold NSC liable for the implementation delay. The NLRC erroneously concluded that NSC appealed to a wrong agency. Presidential Decree No. 1391, which was in effect, eliminated appeals to the Secretary of Labor but preserved the President’s authority to assume jurisdiction over cases involving national interest. Thus, NSC’s appeal to the Office of the President was a valid exercise of its right. Critically, under the Labor Code, the NLRC decision was immediately executory. Remolado could have, but did not, move for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce his reinstatement during the appeal’s pendency. The delay was attributable to Remolado’s inaction, not to NSC’s appeal. Penalizing NSC for exercising a legitimate appeal and for a delay caused by the employee’s own failure to act would be contrary to justice and fair play.