Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Session Delights Vs CA Case Digest

An employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer. Both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employee, ordering back wages and separation pay. The CA affirmed but removed 13th month pay and indemnity. During execution, the Finance Analyst included 13th month pay in an updated computation, which the employer objected to. The CA partially granted the employer's petition by removing 13th month pay again. The Supreme Court ruled that the updated computation was proper, as re-computation is allowed during execution and does not change the final decision, but only updates the monetary consequences until full satisfaction, as mandated by the Labor Code. The case was affirmed and the Labor Arbiter was ordered to re

Uploaded by

Jose Venturina Villacorta
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Session Delights Vs CA Case Digest

An employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer. Both the Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employee, ordering back wages and separation pay. The CA affirmed but removed 13th month pay and indemnity. During execution, the Finance Analyst included 13th month pay in an updated computation, which the employer objected to. The CA partially granted the employer's petition by removing 13th month pay again. The Supreme Court ruled that the updated computation was proper, as re-computation is allowed during execution and does not change the final decision, but only updates the monetary consequences until full satisfaction, as mandated by the Labor Code. The case was affirmed and the Labor Arbiter was ordered to re

Uploaded by

Jose Venturina Villacorta
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

172149

February 8, 2010

SESSION DELIGHTS ICE CREAM AND FAST FOODS vs. CA FACTS: Adonis Flora filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Session Delights, which was ruled favourably by the Labor Arbiter. The decision ordered Session Delights to pay Flora back wages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, indemnity and attorneys fees. Upon appeal, NLRC also ruled in favor of complainant. CA Decision affirmed but deleted the th proportional 13 month pay and the award of indemnity (P5000) for failure to observe due process. In the course of the execution of the judgement, the Finance Analyst submitted an updated computation of the award which included the th proportionate amount of 13 month pay. This was objected by Session, claiming that this was not consistent with the decision but the same was denied by NLRC. The CA, however, partially granted the petition by deleting the awarded proportionate 13th month pay. ISSUE: WON the updated computation was proper Held: Yes, the updated computation was proper. The issue in the case at bar is not the correctness of the awards, the finality of the CAs judgment, nor the petitioners failure to appeal. Rather, it is the propriety of the computation of the awards made, whether this violated the principle of immutability of final judgments. The question is whether a re-computation in the course of execution, of the labor arbiters original computation of the awards made pegged as of the time the decision was rendered and confirmed with modification by a final CA decision, is legally proper. The Court held that under the terms of the decision under execution, no essential change is made by a re-computation as this step is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of dismissal declared in that decision. A re-computation (or an original computation, if no previous computation has been made) is a part of the law specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this provision that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of the Labor Code. 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 the monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. Assailed decision is AFFIRMED. Labor Arbiter is asked to conduct another RE-COMPUTATION to determine actual award based on Courts directives.

You might also like