With finality

Once a judgment attains finality, it may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. This is the rule applied in this case of a furniture company (LGI) and Nick, its vice president who manages its Southeast Asia operations and whose family owns LGI.

 On July 25, 1997, Lito, Lando and Jun, three former employees of LGI, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of legal holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against LGI and Nick before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

On October 4, 1999 Labor Arbiter Laya of the NLRC rendered his decision declaring the dismissal of Lando and Jun illegal and ordering both LGI and Nick to pay them their back-wages. But instead of ordering the reinstatement of Lando and Jun, LGI and Nick were directed to give them separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service. In the case of Lito the LA dismissed his complaint for illegal dismissal and ordered payment only of his 13th pay for the year 1996.

LGI filed a notice of appeal of said decision on November 9, 1999 but failed to file the required memorandum of appeal. So on July 6, 2001 the decision of the LA became final and executory.

The writ of execution of said decision was issued on October 2, 2001 but it was not satisfied. So on January 7, 2002, LA Reyes of the NLRC issued an alias writ of execution commanding the sheriff to proceed to the premises of LGI and/or Nick or to proceed anywhere they may be found in the Philippines and to collect the total amount of P590,828 representing the total money claims of Lito, Lando and Jun as well as execution fee of P5,408.

On February 19, 2002, Nick filed a motion to quash the alias writ insisting that the judgment debt should have been the sole liability of LGI since he was unaware of the labor case filed against him as he was its vice president only until September 17, 1997. Could the alias writ of execution be quashed based on Nick’s ground?

No. The writ issued is in accord with the terms of LA Laya’s decision which it seeks to enforce. LA Laya’s decision is already final and executory on July 6, 2001 and can no longer be the subject of an appeal. Thus Nick is bound by the said decision and can no longer impugn the same.

The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment or orders of courts or quasi-judicial bodies must become final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality (Griffith vs. Estur et. al. G.R. 161777, May 7, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]