781 Phil. 255
LEONEN, J.:
WHEREFORE, all foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, declaring that the one (1) year suspension of complainants VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN and EMMANUEL A. LEYCO was illegal. Accordingly, respondent ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC. (AIM) is hereby ordered to pay aforenamed complainants their withheld salaries and other benefits resulting from the said illegal suspension, plus Ten percent (10%) thereof as and for Attorney's fees. Respondent AIM is also ordered to delete from complainants' employment record the aforesaid penalty of suspension.In its July 4, 2008 Resolution,[10] the National Labor Relations Commission modified the Labor Arbiter's Decision as follows:
. . . .
SO ORDERED.[9]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby MODIFIED in finding complainants-appellees suspension is valid for six (6) months only. Consequently, respondent-appellant ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT is hereby directed to pay the complainants-appellees their salaries half (1/2) year salary and the amount of P50,000.00 each as indemnity in form of nominal damages for their failure to observe complainants-appellees' right to due process.Limlingan and Leyco and AIM filed their respective motions for reconsideration,[12] which were denied in the National Labor Relations Commission Resolution[13] dated October 13, 2008:
SO ORDERED.[11] (Emphasis in the original)
ACCORDINGLY, let both Motions for Reconsideration be, as they are hereby, DENIED for lack of merit. The resolution dated 04 July 2008 STANDS undisturbed.Both parties appealed the Commission's Resolution to the Court of Appeals through certiorari.[15] On May 4, 2010, the Court of Appeals promulgated the Decision[16] modifying the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission:
No further motion of similar nature shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.[14] (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the Petition is partially granted. The Resolution, dated July 4, 2008, of the NLRC is modified in that the penalty of suspension is deleted and instead, the penalty of formal reprimand is imposed on petitioners. Respondent AIM is hereby directed to pay petitioners their one-year salaries corresponding to the period during which they were suspended and Php50,000.00 each as indemnity in the form of nominal damages for its failure to observe the procedure laid down in the Policy Manual for Faculty for disciplining faculty members for dysfunctional behavior.The separate motions for reconsideration of Limlingan and Leyco and of AIM were denied by the Court of Appeals.[18]
SO ORDERED.[17] (Emphasis in the original)
The Court, after a review of the records, further resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 193598 for failure to show that a reversible error was committed by the CA in its Decision dated 4 May 2010 and Resolution dated 27 August 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 106714 when it held that respondents' acts of issuing and disseminating the 27 February 2007 letter cannot be considered as dysfunctional behaviour under the Institute's Policy Manual for Faculty and serious misconduct and willful breach of trust and confidence under Article 282 of the Labor Code, thus warranting the reduction of the penalty of suspension to formal reprimand.[22] (Emphasis in the original)On January 31, 2011, this court issued the Resolution[23] likewise denying Limlingan and Leyco's Petition:
The Court, after a review of the records, resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 193586 for failure to show that a reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 4 May 2010 and Resolution dated 27 August 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 106714 considering that petitioners failed to convince the Court that no valid and compelling reasons existed which excused the belated filing of respondents' appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission; and that their act of releasing the subject demand letter and the manner by which copies of the same were distributed merited the imposition upon them of the penalty of a formal reprimand.[24] (Emphasis in the original)On March 28, 2011 and June 8, 2011, this court denied with finality the separate motions for reconsideration of both parties.[25] The Court of Appeals' May 4, 2010 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 106714 then became final and executory on July 25, 2011.[26]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Labor Arbiter hereby declares that the additional computation submitted by complainants as stated above is allowed, accepted, and to be added to the computation submitted by the CEU thereby respondent ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC. (AIM) is ordered to pay complainants, VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN and EMMANUEL A. LEYCO the amount of P3,034,586.45 and P1,984,765.19, respectively, immediately, representing their unpaid salaries and benefits, court order indemnification, and legal interests as computed plus the ten (10%) percent attorney's fees.The parties elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Commission allowed in Limlingan and Leyco's computation their (a) salaries during the period of suspension; and (b) book/medical allowance.[32] However, the Commission reduced the amounts awarded by the Labor Arbiter.[33] It also allowed payment for health insurance premiums, but only for those amounts supported by documentary evidence.[34] The Commission likewise found that there was basis to impose legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the monetary award counted from the date of finality of the Court of Appeals Decision.[35] It ruled that the award of attorney's fees had attained finality as AIM did not appeal the issue before.[36]
SO ORDERED.[31] (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The 29 November 2013 Order of Labor Arbiter Quintin B. Cueto III is hereby MODIFIED as follows:AIM filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari assailing the National Labor Relations Commission Resolutions dated December 27, 2013 and February 19, 2014.[39]The rest of the Order stands.
- The award of 13th month pay is hereby reduced to P94,502.40 (Limlingan) and P50,199.77 (Leyco), respectively;
- The award of P80,000.00 as health insurance premium in favor of private respondent Limlingan is reduced to P19,520.80;
- The Variable Compensation Faculty Share in Executive Program Revenues is reduced to P54,411.27 each.
- The award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum counted from the date of their illegal suspension until the finality of the Court of Appeals' Decision is deleted.
The Computation and Examination Unit is directed to compute private respondents' monetary awards in accordance with this judgment.
SO ORDERED.[38] (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the present Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed National Labor Relations Commission Third Division's Resolutions dated December 27, 2013 and February 19, 2014, respectively, in LER Case No. 12-361-13 (NLRC NCR Case No. 09-10148-07) are AFFIRMED with the only MODIFICATION that the private respondents are only entitled to the legal interests at the rate of 6% per annum from the time the Decision of the Court of Appeals (in CA-G.R. No. 106714, promulgated on May 4, 2010) became final until full satisfaction thereof. We, however, affirm in all other aspects.The Court of Appeals denied the parties separate motions for reconsideration.[43]
SO ORDERED.[42] (Emphasis in the original)
[A] careful reading of the case of Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al. would show that the Honorable Supreme Court computed the amount of legal interests by applying the interest rate of 12% per annum for the period beginning from the finality of the Decision until 30 June 2013 and the legal interest rate of 6% from 1 July 2013 until full settlement of the monetary award.[45]Limlingan and Leyco argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that they were only entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the May 4, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals until full satisfaction of the award.[46]
We are more convinced with the claims of Leyco (which were contained in the December 27, 2013 Resolution of the NLRC) that, apart from the P39,225.32 he had previously paid, he also spent P5,500.00 for his emergency medical expenses on September 2, 2007. We find more in accord with law his argument that he would not have been forced to pay for the said additional expenses had the petitioner not suspended his coverage without notice. Thusly, We find nothing irregular when the NLRC, after a review of the pertinent documents on Record, allowed the award of P44,725.32 to Leyco.[68]Issues as to the correct computation of monetary awards are questions of fact that is beyond the scope of this court's review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, considering that it "will require a re-examination and calibration of the evidence on record."[69] This court does not see any reason to overturn the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals with regard to this issue. It is settled that:
the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. This Court finds no basis for deviating from said doctrine without any clear showing that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are bereft of substantiation. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed.[70] (Citations omitted)On the second issue, we rule in favor of Limlingan and Leyco and grant their Petition.
That the amount respondents shall now pay has greatly increased is a consequence that it cannot avoid as it is the risk that it ran when it continued to seek recourses against the Labor Arbiter's decision.[72]With regard to the proper rate of legal interest, Nacar laid down the guidelines for the imposition of legal interest:
To recapitulate and for future guidance, the guidelines laid down in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines are accordingly modified to embody BSP-MB Circular No. 799, as follows:On July 25, 2011, the Court of Appeals' May 4, 2010 Decision became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.[74] Prior to Nacar and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013, the rate of legal interest was pegged at 12% per annum from finality of judgment until its satisfaction, "this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit."[75]
I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi- contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages.
II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:And, in addition to the above, judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, 2013, shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be implemented applying the rate of interest fixed therein.[73] (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
- When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
- When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages, except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
- When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
To be sure, since the attorney's fees matter was not raised as an issue during the appeal, it follows that the aggrieved party had agreed to the same. Time and again, the doctrine of finality of judgment, which is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, dictates that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of the courts must become final and executory at some definite date set by law.[79] (Citation omitted)The issue as to Limlingan and Leyco's entitlement to attorney's fees already attained finality. Issues not raised on appeal cannot be disturbed.[80] Moreover, in Aliling v. Feliciano, et al.,[81] this court explained the reason for awarding attorney's fees:
Petitioner Aliling is also entitled to attorney's fees in the amount of ten percent (10%) of his total monetary award, having been forced to litigate in order to seek redress of his grievances, pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code and following our ruling in Exodus International Construction Corporation v. Biscocho, to wit:WHEREFORE, G.R. No. 220503 is CONSOLIDATED with G.R. No. 220481. The Petition for Review filed by Victor S. Limlingan and Emmanuel A. Leyco docketed as G.R. No. 220481 is GRANTED. The Petition for Review filed by Asian Institute of Management, Inc. docketed as G.R. No. 220503 is DENIED for failing to show reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals' January 13, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 135116 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that Limlingan and Leyco are entitled to legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the finality of the Court of Appeals' May 4, 2010 Decision up to June 30, 2013, and at 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction of the award.In Rutaquio v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court held that:It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable.In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals this Court ruled that:Attorney's fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party.While in Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation, the Court specifically ruled:However, the award of attorney's fee is warranted pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code. Ten (10%) percent of the total award is usually the reasonable amount of attorney's fees awarded. It is settled that where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable.[82] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)