G.R. No. 102876 - BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION, VS. NATIONAL

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Declaring the retrenchment undertaken by BASECO to be legal and valid; 2. Ordering BASECO to pay the separation pay of the individual complainants herein equivalent to one (1) month of one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is higher, a fraction of at least 6 months being considered as one (1) whole year; 3. Declaring respondent BASECO guilty of discrimination in the selection of the employees to be retrenched therefore, guilty of unfair labor practice; and 4. Ordering respondent to pay each of the individual complainants herein six (6) months backwages as a penalty for committing said unfair labor practice acts." [1] BASECO appealed from the aforesaid decision to respondent NLRC. In a Resolution, dated December 27, 1985, the Third Division of the NLRC affirmed the aforequoted Decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Francisco M. Jose. Consequently, a Writ of Execution was issued on January 15, 1987 for the payment of the amount of P4,106,284.00 ostensibly to satisfy the monetary awards. When the petitioner elevated the case to us by way of certiorari, the Court, on May 9, 1988, dismissed the petition, [2] for lack of merit and upheld en toto the decision of the NLRC. Accordingly, herein private respondents filed a Motion for Alias Writ of Execution with respondent NLRC which was duly granted in a Resolution dated November 29, 1990. [3] Subsequently, a Motion for Reconsideration dated January 10, 1991 was filed by petitioner. [4] Meanwhile, in a Resolution dated July 19, 1991, [5] respondent NLRC dramatically modified the monetary awards from the original P4,106,284.00 to P203,563.91 upon the report of Juanita O. Bautista, Labor Arbitration Associate (LAA) of respondent NLRC. Stung by this modification, both BASECO and private respondents NAFLU moved for reconsideration. October 30, 1991, a Resolution was promulgated by respondent NLRC which denied both motions. The dispositive portion of the aforesaid Resolution states: "WHEREFORE, the motions under consideration are hereby denied for lack of merit. No further motions for reconsideration shall be entertained." [6] Hence, petitioner filed the herein Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction: (a) to annul and set aside respondent NLRC's Resolution dated July 19, 1991 in Injunction Case No. 1429 insofar as it awarded to private respondents the sum of P2,203,363.91 without deducting therefrom all the payments of separation pay made by petitioner; [7] (b) to annul and set aside respondent NLRC's Resolution dated October 30, 1991 [8] which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 15 August 1991; (c) to enjoin and prohibit the NLRC from proceeding with the implementation of the abovestated Resolution; and (d) to temporarily restrain the NLRC from proceeding with the implementation of the aforestated Resolutions pending determination of the merits of th