THIRD DIVISION
KING INTEGRATED
SECURITY
SERVICES, INC.,
AND/OR MINA KING,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
143813
July 7, 2003
-versus-
GALO S. GATAN,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For resolution is a Petition
for Review on
Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,
as amended, assailing the Decision[1]
dated November 26, 1999 and the Resolution[2]
dated June 26, 2000 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
53985.
Galo S. Gatan, respondent,
filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal deduction and
underpayment
of wages against King Integrated Security Services, Inc. and/or Mina
King,
petitioners, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 04-0264295.chanrobles virtual law library
Eventually, the Labor
Arbiter rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE,
respondent is hereby ordered to pay complainant herein his wage
differential
in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED
EIGHTY
and 30/100 (P184,780.30) PESOS.chanrobles virtual law library
"SO ORDERED."chanrobles virtual law library
On appeal, the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Resolution modifying the
Labor
Arbiter’s Decision by deleting the amount representing respondent’s
wage
differential for the period from November 2,1990 to February 10, 1992,
pursuant to Article 291 of the Labor Code which provides that all money
claims arising from employer-employee relations shall be filed within
three
(3) years from the time the cause of action accrued, otherwise, they
shall
be forever barred.
The NLRC Resolution,
having become final and executory, the Labor Arbiter issued an order
directing
the issuance of a writ of execution. From this order, petitioners
interposed
an appeal to the NLRC, but it was dismissed in a Resolution[3]
dated February 26, 1999. Their motion for reconsideration was denied in
a Resolution[4]
dated April 26, 1999.cralaw:red
Forthwith, petitioners
filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 53985, assailing the NLRC Resolution dismissing their
appeal.cralaw:red
In a Decision dated
November 26, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and
affirmed
with modification the Resolutions of the NLRC, thus:
"WHEREFORE,
the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed resolutions are AFFIRMED
except
as to the monetary award covering the period from February 11, 1992 to
April 9, 1992, which shall be deducted from the computation made by the
Research and Information Unit of the National Labor Relations
Commission.
"SO ORDERED."chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioners filed a
motion
for partial reconsideration but it was denied for lack of merit in a
Resolution
dated June 26, 2000.
Petitioners alleged
in the instant petition that the Court of Appeals erred: (a) in
disregarding
their documentary evidence showing that respondent received in full his
monthly salary; and, (b) in failing to consider his admission that his
monthly salary rates effective December 16, 1993 and April 1, 1994 were
P5,029.16 and P5,397.97, respectively.cralaw:red
The petition lacks merit.
We have ruled that an order of execution of a final and executory
judgment
is not appealable, otherwise, there would be no end to a case.[5]
In Fabular vs. Court
of Appeals,[6]
we held:
"The
judgment
in this case had long become final and had in fact, been executed. It
is
now beyond the power of the lower court, or of this Court for that
matter,
to modify the same. Settled is the rule that after a judgment has
become
final, no additions can be made thereto, and nothing can be done
therewith
except its execution; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations,
thus setting at naught the main role of courts of justice, which is to
assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of
peace
and order, by setting justiceable controversies with finality."chanrobles virtual law library
Yet, despite the fact
that
what is being assailed is the NLRC Resolution ordering the issuance of
a writ of execution, still the Court of Appeals gave due course to the
petition for certiorari and evaluated the parties’ evidence. Clearly,
the
Court of Appeals overstepped its jurisdiction.
Once a decision or resolution
becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court or
tribunal to order its execution. Such order, we repeat, is not
appealable.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated November 26, 1999 and Resolution
dated June 26, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53985 are
SET ASIDE.cralaw:red
Costs against petitioners.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 107-109.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Id. at 111.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id. at 133-135.
[4]
Id. at 142.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Baluyot vs. Guiao, G.R. No. 136294, September 28, 1999, 315 SCRA 396.
[6]
G.R. No. L-52118, December 15, 1982, 119 SCRA 329.chanrobles virtual law library |