Statutory directives

Valderrama v NLRC
GR No 98239

Date of Promulgation: April 25, 1996
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Petition: Special civil action in the SC
Petitioner: Consuelo Valderrama
Respondent: NLRC, and Maria Andrea Saavedra

Facts:
In 1983, Saavedra filed a complaint against COMMODEX Inc, Valderrama (owner), and other
executives of the corporation. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor and held that she was illegally
dismissed, hence she is entitled to backpay wages.

A writ of execution was granted bu it was returned and unsatisfied since the corporation had
ceased operation, and the respondents too k the position that the writ could not be enforced
against them on the ground that the dispositive portion mentioned only COMMODEX.

Saavedra then filed a motion for clarification, in which she prayed that the executives be held
liable. The petitioner filed an opposition, saying that the decision cannot be amended since its
already final and executory. Saavedra replied that it was not an amendment she sought, but
merely a clarification.

NLRC granted Saavedras motion. This is an appeal by Valderrama.

Issues/Held:
1. WON the decision can be amended/clarified YES
2. WON Valderrama should be held liable YES

Ratio:
1. The rule that once a judgment becomes final, it can no longer be disturbed, altered, or
modified, is not an inflexible one. It admits of exceptions, as where facts and
circumstances transpire after a judgment has become final and executory which
render its execution impossible of unjust. In such a case, the modification may be
sought and alter the judgment to harmonize it with justice and the facts.

In the case at bar, modification of the judgment is appropriate considering that the
company is no longer in operation and there is no showing that it has filed bankruptcy
proceedings in which private respondent might file a claim and pursue her remedy
under Article 110 of the Labor Code. Holding petitioner personally liable for the
judgment in this case is eminently just and proper considering that, although the
dispositive portion of the decision mentions only the respondent company, the text
repeatedly mentions respondents in assessing liability for the illegal dismissal of
private respondent. For indeed petitioner and others were respondents below and
there can be no doubt of their personal liability. The mere happenstance that only the
company is mentioned should not, therefore, be allowed to obscure the fact that in the
text of the decision petitioner and her corespondents below were found guilty of
having illegally dismissed private respondent and of claiming that private respondents
employment was terminated because of retrenchment, when the truth was that she
was dismissed for pregnancy. Hence they should be held personally liable for private
respondents reinstatement with backwages.

2. Jurisprudence and law (PD 525) hold that where a corporation fails to pay wages, the
prescribed penalty shall be imposed upon the employers. This is because a
corporation can only act through its officers and agents. Valderrama, as owner of
COMMODEX, shall be held liable.


Decision:
Dismissed.