G.R. No. 160474 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view thereof, the assailed decision is hereby modified , ordering the respondent to pay complainant benefits under its company retirement plan, less the amount of the loss collection and other outstanding obligations of the complainant with the company as of date, and the appeals are hereby dismissed for lack of merit x x x. [28] [emphasis supplied] The modification it adverts to is in turn based on the Linsangan decision which provided: WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the complaint for illegal dismissal should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent is, however, ordered to pay complainant the amount of Php 2,000.00 as indemnity, any retirement benefit complainant may be entitled to under the company's retirement plan and attorney's fees of 10% of the monetary award x x x. [29] Petitioner reads the decretal portion of the 1993 NLRC Decision to mean that the respondent should be entitled to benefits under the terms of the plan in order to be paid under the decision. Interestingly, the petitioner is not alone in this view as the public respondent NLRC, through the OSG, in G.R. No. 113335 explained to the Court that "x x x it is but just and equitable, as respondent NLRC and the Labor Arbiter correctly pointed out, to award retirement benefits to said employee, if qualified under the retirement plan of petitioner." [30] Petitioner then points out that since respondent was only 36 years old and had rendered only 16 years of service, he was not qualified to receive retirement benefits under the company's retirement plan. It thus concludes that the March 28, 2003 Decision of the CA, as well as the Order of Labor Arbiter Villarosa dated September 2, 2003 that granted the respondent's motion for execution, is null and void for having been issued beyond and in excess of what is mandated under the 1993 NLRC decision. We disagree with these submissions. The 1993 NLRC decision whose execution is disputed has long been final and executory. This case is now almost eighteen (18) years old counted from the filing of the original complaint before the Labor Arbiter. It has gone to this Court once before and has been acted upon with finality. Thus, the termination of the present controversy is now long overdue. In the words of the CA Decision: Litigation must at some time be terminated, even at the risk of occasional errors, for public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory, and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. [31] All these we emphasize at the outset as we will not be diverted by arguments that will effectively reopen the 1993 NLRC decision to further litigation unless this is the only clear way to do justice to the parties. One such mode of reopening the case to further litigation is to recognize and put into issue the eligibility terms of the petitioner's retirement plan as done in the 1998 NLRC decision that attempted to correct