Nacar V. Gallery Frames: Date: August 13, 2013 GR No. 189871 Peralta Interest Nicole Tan

NACAR v.
GALLERY FRAMES
12 Date: August 13, 2013 GR No. 189871 Peralta
Interest Nicole Tan
Petitioners: DARIO NACAR Respondents: GALLERY FRAMES AND/OR FELIPE
BORDEY, JR.
Doctrine:
Facts:
1. Petitioner Dario Nacar filed a complaint for constructive dismissal before the Arbitration
Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against respondents Gallery
Frames.
2. On October 15, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner and found
that he was dismissed from employment without a valid or just cause. Thus, petitioner was
awarded backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement in the amount of
₱158,919.92. (Please see case for full computation)
3. Respondents appealed to the NLRC, but it was dismissed for lack of merit. Accordingly, the
NLRC sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
4. Dissatisfied, respondents filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the CA. On August
24, 2000, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition.
5. An Entry of Judgment was later issued certifying that the resolution became final and
executory on May 27, 2002. The case was, thereafter, referred back to the Labor Arbiter.
6. On November 5, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Correct Computation, praying that his
backwages be computed from the date of his dismissal on January 24, 1997 up to the finality
of the Resolution of the Supreme Court on May 27, 2002.
7. Upon recomputation, the Computation and Examination Unit of the NLRC arrived at an
updated amount in the sum of ₱471,320.31.
8. On December 2, 2002, a Writ of Execution was issued by the Labor Arbiter ordering the
Sheriff to collect from respondents the total amount of ₱471,320.31. Respondents filed a
Motion to Quash Writ of Execution, arguing, that the previous computation stands and no
more recomputation is required to be made. They claimed that after the decision becomes
final and executory, the same cannot be altered or amended anymore. Labor Arbiter denied
and thus, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued on January 14, 2003.
9. Respondents again appealed before the NLRC, which on June 30, 2003 issued a Resolution
granting the appeal in favor of the respondents and ordered the recomputation of the
judgment award.
10. Meanwhile, petitioner moved that an Alias Writ of Execution be issued to enforce the earlier
recomputed judgment award in the sum of ₱471,320.31.
11. The records of the case were again forwarded to the Computation and Examination Unit for
recomputation, where the judgment award of petitioner was reassessed to be in the total
amount of only ₱147,560.19.
12. Petitioner then moved that a writ of execution be issued ordering respondents to pay him the
original amount as determined by the Labor Arbiter in his Decision dated October 15, 1998,
pending the final computation of his backwages and separation pay.
13. On January 14, 2003, the Labor Arbiter issued an Alias Writ of Execution to satisfy the
judgment award that was due to petitioner in the amount of ₱147,560.19, which petitioner
eventually received.
14. Petitioner then filed a Manifestation and Motion praying for the re-computation of the
monetary award to include the appropriate interests.
15. On May 10, 2005, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order granting the motion, but only up to the
amount of ₱11,459.73. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that it is the October 15, 1998 Decision
that should be enforced considering that it was the one that became final and executory. And
reasoned that since decision states that the separation pay and backwages are computed
only up to the promulgation of the said decision, it is the amount of ₱158,919.92 that should
be executed. Thus, since petitioner already received ₱147,560.19, he is only entitled to the
balance of ₱11,459.73.
16. Petitioner appealed before NLRC, denied, and MR, denied. Appealed to CA, denied. The CA
opined that since petitioner no longer appealed the October 15, 1998 Decision of the Labor
Arbiter, which already became final and executory, a belated correction thereof is no longer
allowed, and only clerical errors can be modified.
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. 1.
Ratio:

Nacar V. Gallery Frames: Date: August 13, 2013 GR No. 189871 Peralta Interest Nicole Tan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nacar V. Gallery Frames: Date: August 13, 2013 GR No. 189871 Peralta Interest Nicole Tan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NACAR v.

You might also like