529 Phil. 826
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, decision is hereby rendered as follows:From the foregoing Order, both the Union and IPI filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration/Clarification. The Union prayed, among other things, that the affected workers be ordered reinstated to their former positions with full backpay and without loss of seniority rights, as well as payment of all other employee benefits and compensation until actual reinstatement. IPI, on the other hand, questioned the portions of the Order declaring (1) the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of all rank and file employees of the company; (2) the dismissal of the company's petition to declare the strike of the Union illegal; (3) the salary increase awarded to the employees; and (4) the retention of the provision of the old CBA on union label program. Thus, on 5 December 1991, Secretary Torres issued an Order stating that:
- finding the IPI Employees Union – ALU as the exclusive bargaining agent of all rank and file employees of ALU including sales personnel;
- dismissing, for lack of merit, the charges of contempt filed by the Union against the IPI officials and reiterating our strict directive for a restoration of the status quo ante the strike as hereinbefore discussed;
- dismissing the Union's complaint against the Company for unfair labor practice through refusal to bargain;
- dismissing the IPI petition to declare the strike of the Union as illegal; and
- directing the IPI Employees Union –ALU and the International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to enter into their new CBA, incorporating therein the dispositions hereinbefore stated. All other provisions in the old CBA not otherwise touched upon in these proceedings are, likewise, to be incorporated in the new CBA.[5]
WHEREFORE, in the light of the forgoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered:Aggrieved by the abovequoted Order, IPI appealed said Order to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari,[7] which was subsequently dismissed by the Court in a Resolution dated 14 October 1992. In said Resolution, the Court affirmed the assailed Order of the Labor Secretary and held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Secretary in the issuance of the said Order. IPI did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of said Resolution.
- Dismissing the motions for reconsideration filed by the International Pharmaceutical, Inc. and the Workers Trade Alliance Unions (WATU) for lack of merit;
- Ordering the International Pharmaceutical Inc. to reinstate to their former positions with full backwages reckoned from 8 December 1989 until actually reinstated without loss of seniority rights and other benefits the "affected workers" herein-below listed:
- Reynaldo C. Menor
- Geronimo S. Banquirino
- Rogelio Saberon
- Estefano G. Maderazo
- Herbert G. Veloso
- Rogelio G. Enricoso
- Colito Virtudazo
x x x
- Danilo Palioto
x x x
- Nestor Ouano (listed in paragraphs 1 & 9 of the IPI Employees Union – ALU's Supplemental Memorandum dated 6 March 1991) [Emphasis ours]
- Ordering the International Pharmaceutical Inc. to reinstate to their former positions the following employees, namely:
No further motions of these same nature shall be entertained.[6]
- Alexander Aboganda
- Pacifico Pestano
- Carlito Torregano
- Clemencia Pestano
- Elisea Cabatingan
(listed in paragraph 3 of the IPI Employees Union – ALU's Supplemental Memorandum dated 6 March 1991).
To speed-up the settlement of the issue, the undersigned on 7 February 1995 issued an Order directing the parties to submit within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the Order, their respective Computations. To date, only the computation from complainants including those that were not specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court decision were submitted and received by this office.Meanwhile, on 4 October 1994, Atty. Audie C. Arnado entered his appearance on behalf of fifteen of the 48 employees mentioned in the 5 December 1991 Order of Secretary Torres. Atty. Arnado then filed an Urgent Motion for Execution on behalf of his clients on 21 November 1994. It must be noted that petitioners are not among the fifteen employees represented by Atty. Arnado. On 24 May 1995, Jalilo O. dela Torre, DOLE VII Assistant Regional Director,[9] issued a Writ of Execution in favor of the fifteen employees represented by Atty. Arnado in the amount of P4,162,361.50.
Upon verification of the Computation available at hand, management is hereby directed to pay the employees including those that were not specifically mentioned in the decision but are similarly situated, the aggregate amount of FORTY-THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIVE AND 87/100 PESOS (P43,650,905.87) involving NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (962) employees, in the manner shown in the attached Computation forming part of this Order. This is without prejudice to the final Order of the Court to reinstate those covered employees.
This Order is to take effect immediately and failure to comply as instructed will cause the issuance of a WRIT OF EXECUTION.[8]
WHEREAS, after careful analysis on the position papers, the relevant documents on record, the laws and jurisprudence, the undersigned finds that there is a need to modify not only the computations but also to exclude, those who are not specifically mentioned in the Secretary's decision dated 5 December 1991, their claims not being proper subjects of a Writ of Execution for the reason that they are not among those included in the list of "affected workers" and there being continuing efforts on the part of the Union and IPI Management to arrive at an amicable settlement as far as these workers still employed are concerned.Dissatisfied by the reduced computation contained in the issued Writ of Execution, petitioners filed a "Motion Declaring Subsequent Orders Issued by Assistant Director Jalilo dela Torre Null and Void" on 30 June 1995, 22 days after petitioners' receipt of said Writ on 8 June 1995.
WHEREAS, among the seven (7) salesmen, namely: Geronimo S. Banquirigo, Rogelio Enricoso, Danilo Palioto, Reynaldo C. Menor, Noli Silo, Herbert Veloso and Colito Virtudazo, who are beneficiaries of the awards and whose names appear in the Order of the Secretary of DOLE and represented by Atty. Celso C. Reales, the office finds that the computations include, commissions, per diems and bodega allowance which should have not been included for the following reasons:a. Commissions and per diems –WHEREAS, the 12 April 1995 computations do not consider the incomes earned from gainful employment and the amounts they had received from the company in 1989 and 1990 which should have been deducted from the said computations;
"But commissions ("override commissions" plus "net deposit incentive") are not includible in such base figure since such commissions must be earned by actual market transactions attributable to the employee. Neither should "travels equivalent" (an unusual and unexplained term) and "commission in trading personal clients" be included in such base figure. (Soriano v. NLRC, G.R. 75510, Oct. 27, 1989) (underscoring supplied). Hence, commissions must be earned by actual market transactions and per diems must be actually earned in the field before they are includible in the computation of separation pay.
b. Bodega Allowance –
"An unqualified award of backwages means that the employee is paid at the wage rate at the time of his dismissal. And the Court declared that the base figure to be used in the computation of backwages due to the employee should include not just the basic salary, but also the regular allowances that he had been receiving such as the emergency living allowances and the 13th month pay mandated under the law. In this computation of the amount of backwages, the Labor Arbiter without legal basis excluded the ECOLA. (Paramount Vinyl Products Corp. vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 81200, Oct. 17, 1990). (Underscoring supplied). Bodega allowance being not a regular allowance mandated by law, hence, not includible.
x x x x
NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to proceed to the premises of International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and/or its Manager located at San Jose dela Monataña, Mabolo, Cebu City and require them to pay the aforestated seven (7) salesmen in the aggregate amount of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT & 92/100 (P1,200,378.92), Philippine currency.[10]
There is still however one issue that needs to be resolved. This refers to the issue of the reinstatement with full backwages of the seven (7) salesmen mentioned in the Order dated December 5, 1991 and which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.From the foregoing Order, petitioners, on 6 February 1998, filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Amend/Clarificatory and Reiteration of Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution dated 12 January 1998, which was consequently dismissed for lack of merit by then Acting Labor Secretary Jose M. Español in the second Order assailed herein dated 27 March 1998, the dispositive of which reads:
These employees were also favored with a Writ of Execution dated June 5, 1995 issued by Officer-In-Charge Jaililo de la Torre. The amount involved was P1,200,378.92. In compliance with the Order, IPI deposited the sum with the Regional Office No. VII, this Department.
We believe that the deposit made by IPI should be considered as complete and full payment of its liability insofar as the seven (7) salesmen are concerned. The same was made in compliance with a validly issued Writ of Execution, the legality of which was never the subject of a Motion to Quash by the parties. As such the same has now attained finality and cannot now be questioned nor disturbed.[12]
WHEREFORE, Our Order dated December 24, 1997, is hereby AFFIRMED.Seeking redress from the dismissal of their Motion, petitioners filed before this Court an appeal by way of Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was subsequently remanded to the Court of Appeals for resolution. On 28 February 2001, the appellate court rendered its Decision affirming the assailed Orders dated 24 December 1997 and 27 March 1998, rendered by Labor Secretaries Quisumbing and Español, respectively. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.
The Motion for Reconsideration/Amend/Clarificatory and Reiteration of Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution dated January 12, 1998, filed by six (6) salesmen, namely, Geronimo S. Banquirigo, Reynaldo C. Menor, Rogelio Enricoso, Danilo Palioto, Herbert Veloso, and Colito Virtudazo as well as the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed by Salesman Noli G. Silo, are hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit. The June 5, 1995 Writ of Execution is now considered fully executed and satisfied.[13]
We believe that the deposit made by IPI should be considered as complete and full payment of its liability insofar as the seven (7) salesmen are concerned. The same was made in compliance with a validly issued Writ of Execution, the legality of which was never the subject of a Motion to Quash by the parties. As such the same has now attained finality and cannot now be questioned nor disturbed.[14] [Emphasis ours]Petitioners maintain that the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution issued by Assistant Regional Director dela Torre is null and void as it reduced, without authority, the amount adjudged by Regional Director Macaraya in his 12 April 1995 Notice of Computation/Execution which ordered IPI to pay petitioners the total amount of P4,182,739.97. Therefore, petitioners aver that, it is erroneous for the Labor Secretary to make the pronouncement that the deposit made by IPI, in compliance with the said Writ, is complete and full payment of its liability towards petitioners. Petitioners further contend that, contrary to the declaration of Labor Secretary Quisumbing, they indeed assailed the legality of the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution by the filing of a Motion Declaring the Orders Issued by Assistant Director Jalilo O. dela Torre Null and Void on 30 June 1995. According to petitioners, by filing the said Motion, they have effectively questioned the propriety of said Writ.
x x x A perusal of said motion shows that: (1) It does not state that it is assailing the June 5, 1995 writ of execution which covered the award due petitioner. Instead, mentioned under the heading "Orders Issued by Assistant Director Jalilo de la Torre" were orders dated April 24, 1995, April 27, 1995, and May 15, 1995, which referred to directives to "counsels for the complainants" to attend a conference before the DOLE, to submit a list of workers who are willing to accept the settlement offered by management, and to submit their respective position papers. The instant petition did not even mention the orders aforementioned. (2) In the latter part of said motion, the "amount of judgment affecting the salesmen" was assailed but no particular amounts were specified and no specific errors and objections were advanced. (3) It was only in the May 15, 1996 "Motion for Issuance of Writ" (which notably, was filed almost a year after the filing of the June 5, 1998 motion, and marked as Annex "M" of the petition) that Atty. Celso Reales submitted fairly intelligible presentation of his objections. However, it may be gleaned therefrom that it even modified the title of the June 29, 1995 pleading by misrepresenting that it was entitled "Motion Declaring the Order dated June 5, 1995" issued by Asst. Director Jalilo De la Torre of Department of Labor and Employment, Region VII Null and Void", clearly, to give the June 29, 1995 motion a semblance of lucidity and intelligibility (p.105, Rollo).Worse, no acceptable reason was advanced by petitioners to excuse their delay in questioning said Writ so as to warrant a possible relaxation of the procedural rules. Thus, the Court finds no cogent rule to depart from the ruling embodied in our earlier Resolution.
Hence, notwithstanding the existence of Annex "L" (Motion dated June 29, 1995 and captioned "Motion Declaring Subsequent Orders Issued By Assistant Director Jalilo O. De la Torre Null and Void) filed on June 30, 1995 with the Regional Office of DOLE, Cebu City, such attachment is so flawed that it possesses no bearing on the instant case. Its existence will not change the result that the petition is dismissible since the Secretary of Labor did not commit palpable error amounting to grave abuse of discretion when he ruled that the legality of the June 5, 1995 writ of Execution was never timely assailed and accordingly, that the writ became final and executory.
First, as admitted by petitioner himself, the aforesaid June 29, 1995 motion was filed on the 22nd day after petitioner's receipt of a copy of the June 5, 1995 writ of execution on June 8, 1995. The fact that respondent applied the 10-day period for finality of any decision or order of the Regional Director under Section 1, Rule XXIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code hardly constitutes grave abuse of discretion x x x. Besides, we pronounced in Lamsan Trading Inc. vs. Legardo, Jr., (144 SCRA 571 [1986]) that rules of procedure and practice in the DOLE impose periods to prevent needless delays and to ensure the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with such rules is both mandatory and imperative.[17]
WHEREAS, after careful analysis on the position papers, the relevant documents on record, the laws and jurisprudence, the undersigned finds that there is a need to modify not only the computations but also to exclude, those who are not specifically mentioned in the Secretary's decision dated 5 December 1991, their claim not being proper subjects of a Writ of Execution for the reason that they are not among those included in the list of "affected workers" and there being continuing efforts on the part of the Union and IPI Management to arrive at an amicable settlement as far as these workers still employed are concerned.Considering that the modifications made by Assistant Director dela Torre in the 5 June 1995 Writ of Execution were made precisely to correct the errors contained in the Notice of Computation/Execution, with the intention of making said order in conformity with the 5 December 1991 Order, We cannot ascribe error upon said action. As has been remarked earlier, a Writ of Execution may not vary, or go beyond, the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.[20] By amending the original Notice of Computation/Execution in accordance with the final Order it seeks to enforce, Assistant Director dela Torre merely adhered to a fundamental legal precept that a Writ of Execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed.[21]
WHEREAS, among the seven (7) salesmen, namely: Geronimo S. Banquirigo, Rogelio Enricoso, Danilo Palioto, Reynaldo C. Menor, Noli Silo, Herbert Veloso and Colito Virtudazo, who are beneficiaries of the awards and whose names appear in the Order of the Secretary of DOLE and represented by Atty. Celso C. Reales, the office finds that the computations include commissions, per diems, and bodega allowance which should have not been included x x x.
x x x x
WHEREAS, the 12 April 1995 computations do not consider the incomes earned from gainful employment and the amounts they had received from the company in 1989 and 1990 which should have been deducted from said computations;[19]