Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HON.
ROMULO
P.
SUMALINOG in his capacity as
Acting Executive Labor Arbiter,
and
DALO/
NELSON
TORIANO, ET. AL.,
Respondents.
x -------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM
In support of
VERIFIED PETITION
TO ANNUL ORDER DATED DECEMBER 15, 2014
WITH APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/ PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Petitioner Felipe Datu Lacson, by counsel, most respectfully elevates
for review through this verified petition in accordance with Rule XII of the
NLRC Rules of Procedure the Order dated December 15, 2014 of Public
Respondent, the Honorable Labor Arbiter, and alleges that (1) there is prima
facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Honorable Labor
Arbiter in issuing the Order dated December 15, 2014; (2) Petitioner raises
purely questions of law for the resolution of the Honorable Commission and
(3) the Order dated December 15, 2014 will cause grave injustice upon
Petitioner if not annulled or rectified. The Order dated December 15, 2014
was issued by the Honorable Arbiter during pre-execution proceedings, and
there is no appeal, or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
The original copy of the Order dated December 15, 2014 rendered by
the Honorable Labor Arbiter is hereto attached as Annex A and is made an
integral part of this Petition.
I.
MATERIAL DATES
GROUNDS
2.1 The Honorable Labor Arbiter gravely abused his discretion and ruled
in a manner clearly contrary to law when he awarded separation pay in favor
of private respondents through his Order dated December 15, 2014 despite
the final and executory judgment declaring private respondents were not
illegally dismissed.
2.2 The Honorable Labor Arboter committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when at the execution stage he
issued the Order dated December 15, 2014, which substantially modified the
final and executory Decision dated December 26, 2013, in blatant violation
of the rule on finality and immutability of judgments to the extreme
prejudice of herein Petitioner.
2.3 The Honorable Arbiter gravely abused his discretion when he ordered
the payment of separation pay to private respondents, despite the finding that
private respondents were not illegally dismissed in the Decision dated
December 26, 2013, which is final and binding against private respondents
who did not appeal the said Decision.
III.
DISCUSSION
3.1.2 Having found that herein private respondents were not dismissed by
Petitioner, but rather, preferred to work at other farms in Hda. Santol, the
Honorable Labor Arbiter dismissed herein private respondents claim for
illegal dismissal in his Decision dated December 26, 2013 the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering the DISMISSAL of the case for lack of merit.
However, respondent FELIPE DATU LACSON is hereby
DIRECTED to give complainants NELSON TORIANO, GLECERIO
ARRABIS, SEGINDINO GLARAGA, JR., VICENTE IGNACIO,
DESIREE ARRABIS, GINA LEPORA, REMEDIOS MONDIDO,
VILMA MONDIDO, MARY JEAN TORIANO and CERILA
SARMIENTO their usual work assignments in Hda. Santol sans
backwages.
The original copy of the afore-quoted Decision dated December 26, 2013 is
hereto attached as Annex B and is made an integral part of this Petition.
3.1.3 The above-quoted Decision dated December 26, 2013 was not
appealed by the private respondents, and pursuant to Rule V, Section 21 of
the NLRC Rules of Procedure, has already become final and executory.
3.1.4 Private respondents filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution
and to Order the NLRC Sheriff to Physically Reinstate Complainants to their
Former Position with Computation of Complainants Accrued Salary.
3.1.5 The Honorable Labor Arbiter conducted a Pre-execution Conference
on March 24, 2014.
3.1.5 During the said Conference, herein Petitioner manifested his
willingness to faithfully comply with the dispositive portion of the aforequoted Decision dated December 26, 2013 to give private respondents their
usual work assignments at Hda. Santol. Petitioner and private respondents
proposed ways by which the usual work assignments can be determined
during the said conference.
3.1.6 On April 23, 2014, herein Petitioner submitted his Comment to the
motion for execution filed by herein private respondents. In addition to the
documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner in support of his position
paper, Petitioner attached payrolls in the farm operated by Cibie Lacson, son
of Rene D. Lacson, co-owner of one of the farms at Hda. Santol to show that
private respondents continue their work in Hda. Santol on the farms owned
by the other co-owners of Hda. Santol where they preferred to work,
including the period from the time Petitioner received a copy of the Decision
dated December 26, 2013 on January 10, 2014 up to the date of filing. A
3
copy of the Comment dated April 23, 2014 is hereto attached as Annex C
and is made an integral part hereof.
3.1.7 Petitioner also submitted a Program of Work, which proposed a
way in which Petitioner can give the private respondents their usual work
assignments in faithful compliance with the final Decision dated December
26, 2013. A copy of the Program of Work is hereto attached as Annex D
and is made an integral part hereof.
3.1.8 However, instead of causing the execution of the Decision dated
December 26, 2013 strictly in accordance with its terms by ruling on the
manner on how Petitioner shall give private respondents their usual work
assignments, the Honorable Labor Arbiter gravely abused his discretion
when he modified the final and executory Decision dated December 26,
2013 and ordered herein Petitioner to pay private respondents separation
pay, despite the fact that said private respondents were not dismissed, legally
or illegally. The dispositive portion of the challenged Order dated December
15, 2014 of the Honorable Labor Arbiter states:
WHEREFORE, the complainants Motion for
Computation of Accrued Salaries is DENIED for lack of merit.
the
(28/178xP114,713.75)
(17/178xP114,713.75)
(18/178xP114,713.75)
(14/178xP114,713.75)
(15/178xP114,713.75)
(26/178xP114,713.75)
(7/178xP114,713.75)
(18/178xP114,713.75)
(17/178xP114,713.75)
(18/178xP114,713.75)
P18,044.86
10,955.81
11,600.27
9,022.43
9,666.88
16,755.94
4,511.21
11.600.27
10,955.81
11,600.27
P114,713.75
3.2.2 It is clear from the Decision dated December 26, 2013 that the claims
of private respondents have already been tried, adjudicated upon and
determined with finality. The afore-mentioned judgment already constitutes
the final determination of the rights of the private respondents vis--vis the
Petitioner.
3.2.3 The Decision dated December 26, 2013 dismissed the case for illegal
dismissal filed by herein private respondents. This Decision had already
become final and binding against the parties for having failed to appeal the
same. Private respondents had in fact already filed a motion for the
execution of the Decision dated December 26, 2013. The award of
separation pay directly conflicts with and modifies the Honorable Labor
Arboters own final judgment that there was no illegal dismissal.
3.2.4 It is settled jurisprudence that once a decision becomes final, even the
court which has rendered it can no longer alter or modify it, except to correct
clerical errors or mistakes. Otherwise, there would be no end to litigation,
thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice, which is, to assist in
the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order,
by settling justiciable controversies with finality. (Heirs of Remigio Tan vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71033 July 29, 1988)
3.2.5 The afore-mentioned judgment having long attained finality, all that
the Honorable Labor Arbiter had authority to do was to enforce the same
strictly in accordance with its terms. Petitioner and private respondents must
be required to comply only with what was decreed in the dispositive portion
of the final judgment being enforced.
3.2.6 As explained in the case of Kukan International Corp. vs. Hon.
Reyes, (G.R. No. 182729, September 29, 2010):
It is an elementary principle of procedure that the resolution of
the court in a given issue as embodied in the dispositive part of a
decision or order is the controlling factor as to settlement of rights of
the parties. Once a decision or order becomes final and executory,
it is removed from the power or jurisdiction of the court which
rendered it to further alter or amend it. It thereby becomes
immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration which
substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void
for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that
purpose. An order of execution which varies the tenor of the
judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.
xxx
3.2.7 With all due respect to the Honorable Commission, the meaning of the
dispositive portion of the Decision dated December 26, 2013 was clear in
that it dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and ordered Petitioner to
give herein private respondents their usual work assignments. The award of
separation pay made in the Order dated Decmber 15, 2014 resolving private
respondents motion for execution clearly modified the final Decision dated
December 26, 2013, and is null and void for violating the rule on
immutability of judgments.
3.2.8 As declared by the Supreme Court in the case of First United
Constructors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171901,
December 19, 2006:
Public policy and sound practice demand that at the risk of
occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final and
irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. This is better observed
if the court executing the judgment would refrain from creating
further controversy by effectively modifying and altering the
dispositive portion of the decision, thus further delaying the
satisfaction of the judgment. No matter how just the intention of the
trial court, it cannot legally reverse what has already been settled.
3.2.9 In the interest of justice, Petitioner respectfully entreats the Honorable
Commission to set aside the Order dated December 15, 2014 for having been
issued by Public Respondent without or in excess of its jurisdiction, and to
remand the case to the Public Respondent only for purposes of strictly
enforcing the dispositive portion of the final Decision dated December 26,
2013.
acted in bad faith, as they accepted the CA ruling. The decision of the
CA, therefore, became binding and final as to them. As a matter of
fact, the CA already issued a partial entry of judgment against the
Cuasos.
3.3.6 The grant of reliefs to Respondent as a party who did not appeal runs
counter to fundamental principles of fair play and due process, to the
extreme prejudice of the party who appealed. (Philippine Tobacco FlueCuring & Redrying Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 127395, December 10, 1998)
3.3.7 In executing the Decision dated December 26, 2013, Public
Respondent should have limited himself to determining the manner in which
Petitioner is to give the private respondents their usual work assignments,
giving due consideration to its own finding that the private respondents were
not dismissed, but by their own preference and volition, were in fact
working on two of the three farms found on the same Hacienda Santol
operated by Petitioners co-owners.
3.3.8 It is respectfully submitted that Public Respondent gravely abused his
discretion to the extreme prejudice of the Petitioner when he ordered the
payment of separation pay, thus awarding additional reliefs to private
respondents that were not granted in the Decision dated December 26, 2013,
which is binding upon private respondents for having failed to appeal.
IV. ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
4.1 The issuance by this Honorable Court of a temporary restraining order
is a matter of extreme urgency because to allow the immediate execution of
the Order dated December 15, 2014 would render nugatory any decision of
the Honorable Commission regarding the propriety of the award of
separation pay for private respondents who were not illegally dismissed.
Petitioner will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury as he will have no
means to recover any amount that we will be paid out to the private
respondents should the Honorable Commission rule that payment of
separation pay is not proper.
4.2 The Decision dated December 26, 2013 having already attained
finality, Petitioner has acquired the vested right of having the final and
executory judgment enforced strictly in accordance with its terms. There is
no standard by which the injury that Petitioner will suffer can be measured if
the execution proceedings before the Honorable Labor Arbiter are not
restrained, specifically, the order requiring Petitioner to pay separation pay
to private respondents. There is no amount that can adequately or fairly
recompense Petitioner from the damage or injury that will result to the
10