DARIO NACAR, PETITIONER, vs. GALLERY FRAMES AND/OR FELIPE BORDEY, JR., RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 189871

August 13, 2013

FACTS

On January 24, 1997, Dario Nacar got dismissed by his employer, Gallery Frames. He filed a complaint;
the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was dismissed without just cause. A computation for the
separation pay and back wages were made it amounted to Php 158,919.92. The respondent sought
appeal to the NLRC, CA and Supreme Court, but they were all dismissed, thus the judgment became final
on April 17, 2002.

During the execution of the final judgment, the petitioner filed a motion for the re-computation of the
damages. The amount previously computed includes the separation pay and back wages up to the time
of his dismissal. The petitioner argued that the damages should cover the period until the date of final
judgment. A re-computation was made and the damages was increased to 471,320.31. Respondent
prayed for the quashal of such motion on the ground that the judgment made by the SC is already final
and the amount should not be further altered.

Petitioner also filed another motion asking the court to order the respondent to pay the appropriate
legal interest of the damages from the date of final judgment until full payment.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not a subsequent correction of the damages awarded during the final judgment of
the Supreme Court violates the rule on immutability of judgments.
2. Whether or not the re-computation made by the Labor Arbiter is correct.
3. Whether or not appropriate interests may be claimed by the petitioner.

RULING

1. Whether or not a subsequent correction of the damages awarded during the final judgment of
the Supreme Court violates the rule on immutability of judgments.

The Supreme Court ruled that a correction in the computation of the damages does not violate the rule
on immutability of judgments. The final decision made by the Supreme Court to award the petitioner
with damages with regards to the dismissal without justifiable cause can be divided into two important
parts. One is the finding that an illegal dismissal was indeed made. And the other is the computation of
damages. According to a previous case of Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court held that the second part of the decision - being merely a computation of what the
first part of the decision established and declared - can, by its nature, be re-computed. The re-
computation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute
an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands;
only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected, and this is not a violation
of the principle of immutability of final judgments.
 2. Whether or not the re-computation made by the Labor Arbiter is correct.

The Supreme Court believes that the amount of 471,320.31 as damages is correct. According to Article
279 of the Labor Code, reliefs in case of illegal dismissal continue to add up until its full satisfaction. The
original computation clearly includes damages only up to the finality of the labor arbiter's decision.
Therefore, the Supreme Court approves the decision confirming that a re-computation is necessary. The
labor arbiter re-computed the award to include the separation pay and the back wages due up to the
finality of the decision that fully terminated the case on the merits.

3. Whether or not appropriate interests may be claimed by the petitioner.

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest. In the case of Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, among the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the
manner of computing legal interest is - when the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money
becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its
satisfaction. In addition to this, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board (BSP-MB), in its
Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013 declared that the rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of
any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as
to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum. Consequently, the twelve percent (12%) per
annum legal interest shall apply until June 30, 2013. Afterwards, the new rate of six percent (6%) per
annum shall be the prevailing rate of interest when applicable.

The respondent was ordered to pay interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the total monetary
awards, computed from May 27, 2002 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1,
2013 until their full satisfaction.