This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Thereafter, PHIMCO appealed to this Court through a petition for review on certiorari which the Court denied in its Resolution[6] dated October 3, 2001. The resolution became final and executory on December 4, 2001.[7] PILA then filed a motion for the computation of backwages and benefits of the 7 union members, the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 57988 likewise having become final and executory. | |||||
|
2014-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| PHIMCO further argued that the March 28, 2005 resolution[12] of LA Mangandog did not modify the February 27, 2005 decision[13] of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 57988. The Mangandog resolution, it explained, simply applied Section 4, Rule 1, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, requiring the payment of separation pay in case the establishment where the employee is to be reinstated has closed or has ceased operations or where his or her former position no longer exists at the time of reinstatement, for reasons not attributable to the fault of the employer. | |||||
|
2014-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Invoking this Court's ruling in David v. CA,[18] the CA held that while the judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 57988 (sought to be enforced by the challenged NLRC resolutions) had attained finality, there were facts and/or events which transpired after the judgment was issued, which presented a supervening cause that rendered the final and executory decision no longer enforceable. The "supervening cause" CA had in mind referred principally to this Court's (3rd Division) ruling in the illegal strike case (G.R. No. 170830) promulgated on August 11, 2010 that PILA's members were validly dismissed as they committed unlawful acts during the strike. It also cited the Court's (2nd Division) resolution in the illegal dismissal case (G.R. No. 192875) issued on January 19, 2011 recognizing that the Court's decision in the illegal strike case had already become final and executory. The Court, in effect, denied PILA's prayer in G.R. No. 192875 to have the dismissed union members who participated in the strike reinstated, thereby acknowledging that they had been validly dismissed. | |||||
|
2014-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As the petitioners themselves acknowledge, the doctrine of immutability of final judgments admits of certain exceptions as explained in Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc.,[32] which they cite to prove their case. One recognized exception is the existence of a supervening cause or event which renders the enforcement of a final and executory decision unjust and inequitable. In this particular case, a supervening event transpired, which must be considered in the execution of the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 57988 in order not to create an injustice to or an inequitable treatment of workers who, like the petitioners, participated in a strike where this Court found the commission of illegal acts by the strikers, among them the petitioners. | |||||