Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SESSION DELIGHTS ICE CREAM v. CA

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 211228 2014-11-12	UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN v. FLORENTINO FERNANDEZ REYES, J.
In support of the instant petition, the petitioners allege that the doctrines enunciated in Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division)[15] do not apply in the case at bar. LA Gambito explicitly qualified the award of backwages and separation pay to be computed from the date of dismissal up to November 6, 2000. The said qualification appears both in the immutable and computation portions of the judgment.[16]
	GR No. 201483 2014-08-04	CONRADO A. LIM v. HMR PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.
The rule is that it is the dispositive portion that categorically states the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute as against each other. Thus, it is the dispositive portion that must be enforced to ensure the validity of the execution. That a judgment should be implemented according to the terms of its dispositive portion is a long and well-established rule. A companion to this rule is the principle of immutability of final judgments. Save for recognized exceptions, a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court renders it. Any attempt to insert, change or add matters not clearly contemplated in the dispositive portion violates the rule on immutability of judgments.[22]
	GR No. 156208 2014-06-30	NPC DRIVERS v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION BRION, J.
In Session Delights Ice Cream & Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals,[113] we explained that, pursuant to our ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[114] a final decision becomes a judgment for money from which consequence flows the payment of legal interest of 12% in case of delay. We clarified in BPI Employees Union-Metro Manila v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,[115] that the payment of legal interest of 12% is a "natural consequence of a final judgment."[116] Thus, we held in Gonzales v. Solid Cement Corporation[.][117] that the principle of immutability of judgment is not affected.
	GR No. 170904 2013-11-13	BANI RURAL BANK v. TERESA DE GUZMAN BRION, J.
In Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division),[21] we held that a decision in an illegal dismissal case consists essentially of two components: The first is that part of the decision that cannot now be disputed because it has been confirmed with finality. This is the finding of the illegality of the dismissal and the awards of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages[.]
	GR No. 189871 2013-08-13	DARIO NACAR v. GALLERY FRAMES PERALTA, J.
The instant case is similar to the case of Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division),[27] wherein the issue submitted to the Court for resolution was the propriety of the computation of the awards made, and whether this violated the principle of immutability of judgment. Like in the present case, it was a distinct feature of the judgment of the Labor Arbiter in the above-cited case that the decision already provided for the computation of the payable separation pay and backwages due and did not further order the computation of the monetary awards up to the time of the finality of the judgment. Also in Session Delights, the dismissed employee failed to appeal the decision of the labor arbiter. The Court clarified, thus:In concrete terms, the question is whether a re-computation in the course of execution of the labor arbiter's original computation of the awards made, pegged as of the time the decision was rendered and confirmed with modification by a final CA decision, is legally proper. The question is posed, given that the petitioner did not immediately pay the awards stated in the original labor arbiter's decision; it delayed payment because it continued with the litigation until final judgment at the CA level.
	GR No. 192571 2013-07-23	ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly terminated from her employment and thus, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers, namely, Misa, Bernardo, Almazar, Walsh, Terrible, and Feist.[24] She claimed that she should have already been considered as a regular and not a probationary employee given Abbott's failure to inform her of the reasonable standards for her regularization upon her engagement as required under Article 295[25] of the Labor Code. In this relation, she contended that while her employment contract stated that she was to be engaged on a probationary status, the same did not indicate the standards on which her regularization would be based.[26] She further averred that the individual petitioners maliciously connived to illegally dismiss her when: (a) they threatened her with termination; (b) she was ordered not to enter company premises even if she was still an employee thereof; and (c) they publicly announced that she already resigned in order to humiliate her.[27]
	GR No. 160786 2013-06-17	SIMPLICIA O. ABRIGO v. JIMMY F. FLORES BERSAMIN, J.
Although it is true that there are recognized exceptions to the execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment, one of which is a supervening event, such circumstance did not obtain herein. To accept their contention would be to reopen the final and immutable judgment in order to further partition the western portion thereby adjudicated to the heirs and successors-in-interest of Francisco Faylona for the purpose of segregating the ¼ portion supposedly subject of the sale by Jimmy Flores. The reopening would be legally impermissible, considering that the November 20, 1989 decision, as modified by the CA, could no longer be altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification was meant to correct what was perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or of law and regardless of what court, be it the highest Court of the land, rendered it.[8] This is pursuant to the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment, which may be relaxed only to serve the ends of substantial justice in order to consider certain circumstances like: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) the cause not being entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the doctrine; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; or (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced by the suspension.[9]
	GR No. 160138 2013-01-16	AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE REBUILDERS v. PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA AER MENDOZA, J.
These excluded nine (9) workers, who signed their names in their petition before the CA, deserve to be reinstated immediately and granted backwages. It is basic in jurisprudence that illegally dismissed workers are entitled to reinstatement with backwages plus interest at the legal rate.[21]
	GR No. 198423 2012-10-23	EN BANC LEO A. GONZALES v. SOLID CEMENT CORPORATION BRION, J.
On the execution aspect of an illegal dismissal decision, the case of Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division),[16] despite its lack of a complete factual congruence with the present case, serves as a good guide on how to approach the execution of an illegal dismissal decision that contains a monetary award.