Florencio Libongcogon, et al. vs.

Phimco Industries, Inc.

G.R. No. : 203332. June 18, 2014
Ponente : Arturo D. Brion
Subject
: LABOR LAW (Illegal Strike)
REMEDIAL LAW (Immutability
of final judgments)
FACTS:
PHIMCO is a domestic corporation
engaged in the production of matches.
The Phimco Labor Association (PILA) is
the
exclusive
collective
bargaining
representative of the PHIMCO employees.
Due to a bargaining deadlock with
PHIMCO, PILA staged a strike. NLRC
issued a TRO but the strike continued,
with the strikers blocking the companys
points of ingress and egress. Three days
later, PHIMCO served dismissal notices
on the strikers for the alleged illegal acts
they committed during the strike. PILA
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice against PHIMCO.
PHIMCO, for its part, filed a petition to
declare the strike illegal. DOLE issued a
return-to-work order. PILA ended its strike
and PHIMCO resumed its operations.
Later PHIMCO laid off 21 of its employees
and implemented a retirement program
covering 53 other employees. PILA found
out that 7 other workers who were
dismissed were not included in the illegal
dismissal case. PILA then filed another
complaint with NLRC with the ff. causes
of action: (1) the illegal dismissal of the 7
employees; (2) the forced retirement of
53 employees; and (3) the lay-off of 21
employees.
NLRC dismissed the case as well as the
appeal. Petition for certiorari to CA
was partly granted. It found the 7
employees to have been illegally
dismissed. PHIMCO appeal to SC thru a
petition for review on certiorari was
denied. The resolution became final
and executory. PILA then filed a motion
for the computation of backwages and
benefits of the 7 union members. LA
ordered the issuance of a writ of
execution in favor of the 5 employees
excluding 2 of the employees who
passed away and whose heirs had

received financial assistance which they

executed quitclaims. PHIMCOs appeal
and motion for reconsideration was
denied by NLRC. 1 employee moved for
the dismissal of the case as far as he was
concerned
manifesting
voluntary
quitclaim. PHIMCO then filed a motion for
the computation of the backwages of the
3 employees claiming that their former
positions no longer existed making their
reinstatement physically impossible and
arguing that its obligation only is to pay
them
separation
pay.
LA
upheld
PHIMCOs position and ordered the
payment of the separation pay of the 4
employees. 1 employee again voluntarily
executed a quitclaim. NLRC find merit
to PILAs appeal and reversed LAs
ruling ordering the reinstatement of
the 7 dismissed union members
which had long become final and
executory.
PHIMCOs
motion
for
reconsideration to NLRC resulted to a
modified resolution dismissing the
case with prejudice with respect to
the 4 employees or their heirs for
executing quitclaims in favor of
PHIMCO.
CA
amended
Decision
reversed the NLRCs ruling due to a
supervening cause the ruling of
the SC in the illegal strike case that
PILAs
members
were
validly
dismissed due to the commission of
illegal strike blocking the points of
ingress and egress of PHIMCO
(members positively identified). PILA
questioned the decision quoting the
doctrine
of
immutability
of
final
judgments nullifying the final and
executory decision of the illegal dismissal
case. PHIMCO on its part claim that the
rule on commonality of interest is
applicable on this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA is correct in
relying to the rulings in the illegal strike
case and the illegal dismissal case as
basis for its amended decision.
HELD:
We rule in the affirmative.

The doctrine of immutability of final

judgments
admit
of
certain
exceptions the existence of a
supervening cause or event which
renders the enforcement of a final
and executory decision unjust and
inequitable.
The fact that the decision has become
final does not necessarily preclude its
modification or alteration; even with the
finality of judgment, when its execution

becomes impossible or unjust due to

supervening facts, it may be modified or
altered to harmonize it with demands of
justice
and
the
altered
material
circumstances not existing when the
decision was originally issued.
Digested by:
Jacqueline A. Llabado
April 17, 2015