DANAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs NLRC

G.R. No. L-40706-07, February 16, 1978

Issues:
May judgments regarding the grant of back wages attain immediate finality?
51
Ruling:

No. The Court answered in the negative. By its very nature, a judgment ordering
payment of backwages does not necessarily contemplate a simple and straight computation
of the corresponding wages of the prevailing claimants on the basis of the number of days or
months from the date of unlawful dismissal to the date of reinstatement or the date fixed by
the Court. There are other factors which must be indispensably looked into also, such as, for
example, whether or not the workers ordered reinstated have worked elsewhere during the
period of lay-off, in order that there wages corresponding to the number of days they have so
worked may be deducted from the award. Besides, some of in might have died already or
have become retirable. We hold, therefore, that the usual concept of finality which makes a
judgment executory does not attach to judgments of the nature herein concerned.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS

PACIFIC MILLS, INC. vs NLRC
G.R. No. 88864, January 17, 1990

Issue:
May the execution of a final judgment of NLRC be stayed in view of supervening
52
events?

Ruling:
Yes. There can be no question that the supervening events cited by petitioner would
certainly affect the computation of the award in the decision of the NLRC. It is the duty of the
NLRC to consider the same and inquire into the correctness of the execution, as such
supervening events may affect such execution.
Of course public respondent alleges that in several conferences had with the petitioner,
petitioner did not raise these objections and that the petition is dilatory. Whatever it may be,
the fact cannot be denied that such supervening events as the length of service of the private
respondents, the wage exemptions granted, and payments already made on the award would
certainly affect the computation of the total award under the decision. Thus, a prompt and
immediate determination of these objections and a recomputation of the award should be
made. A denial of this opportunity to right a clear error in the execution of the judgment
constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS

SAMPAGUITA GARMENTS CORP. vs NLRC
G.R. No. 102406, June 17, 1994

Issue:
If an employee is absolved of an offense that led to her dismissal and is ordered
53
reinstated, will her subsequent conviction in a criminal prosecution for the same offense affect
the administrative decision?

Ruling:

Yes. There is no dispute in the case at bar that the decision of the respondent NLRC
ordering the private respondent’s reinstatement with back wages had indeed become final and
executory. Even so, we find, in light of the subsequent developments, that the NLRC was not
correct in sustaining the implementation of that decision.

In Heirs of Francisco Guballa, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 10 this Court held that "the
power of the NLRC to issue a writ of execution carries with it the right to look into the
correctness of the execution of the decision and to consider supervening events that may
affect such execution."

The affirmance by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals of the private
respondent’s conviction for theft is justification enough for the NLRC to exercise this authority
and suspend the execution of its decision. Such conviction, which was also upheld by this
Court in G.R. No. 100929, is a supervening cause that rendered unjust and inequitable the
decision mandating the private respondent’s reinstatement, and with back wages to boot.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS

INDUSTRIAL AND TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT, INC. vs NLRC
G.R. No. 113592, January 15, 1998

Issue:
54
Is an order, issued by the labor arbiter, finding petitioner guilty of indirect contempt and
the reinstatement of respondent within its ambit of power of the labor arbiter?

Ruling:
Yes. The Court answered against the petitioner. Section 2, Rule X of the New Rules
of Procedure of the NLRC provides that the Commission or any labor arbiter may cite any
person for indirect contempt upon grounds and in the manner prescribed under Section 3(b),
Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 3(b), Rule 71 provides “disobedience of
or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court” as a ground to cite a
person for indirect contempt.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS

ROBOSA vs NLRC
G.R. No. 176085, February 8, 2012

Issues:
Does the NLRC have contempt powers and is a dismissal of a contempt charge be
55
appealed?

Ruling:
Yes. Under Article 218[22] of the Labor Code, the NLRC (and the labor arbiters) may
hold any offending party in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties
in accordance with law. The penalty for direct contempt consists of either imprisonment or
fine, the degree or amount depends on whether the contempt is against the Commission or
the labor arbiter. The Labor Code, however, requires the labor arbiter or the Commission to
deal with indirect contempt in the manner prescribed under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Rule
71 of the Rules of Court does not require the labor arbiter or the NLRC to initiate indirect
contempt proceedings before the trial court. This mode is to be observed only when there is
no law granting them contempt powers. As is clear under Article 218(d) of the Labor Code,
the labor arbiter or the Commission is empowered or has jurisdiction to hold the offending
party or parties in direct or indirect contempt.
No. A dismissal of a contempt charge is unappealable. The second issue pertains to
the nature of contempt proceedings, especially with respect to the remedy available to the
party adjudged to have committed indirect contempt or has been absolved of indirect contempt
charges. In this regard, Section 11, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court states that the judgment or
final order of a court in a case of indirect contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in
a criminal case. This is not the point at issue, however, in this petition. It is rather the question
of whether the dismissal of a contempt charge, as in the present case, is appealable. The CA
held that the NLRC’s dismissal of the contempt charges against the respondents amounts to
an acquittal in a criminal case and is not subject to appeal.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS