NESTOR P. AVENIDO, AND OLIVE CEA, VS. HON. VITO C. BOSE

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, directing Naga College Foundation and Dr. Melchor T. Villanueva or any responsible official to immediately reinstate the individual complainants to their respective former or equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay their backwages thru this Branch within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, as follows: 1. Eduardo C. Laureles .... P 81,671.85 2. Olivia E. Cea ................ 80,521.55 3. Ramon V. Surara.......... 87,285.35 4. Nestor P. Avenido........ 73,619.70 5. Gerardo J. Saman......... 91,587.50 GRAND TOTAL ===== P 414,685.95 All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. [1] Private respondents appealed. On January 19, 1993, while the appeal was pending, petitioners moved for the execution of the portion of the decision insofar as it granted reinstatement. [2] The motion was made pursuant to Art. 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by §12 of R.A. No. 6715. On February 23, 1993, the parties entered into an agreement whereby private respondents agreed to reinstate petitioners in the payroll effective September 21, 1992, the date of receipt by them of the ELAs decision. Private respondents agreed to pay petitioners their monthly salary beginning March 30, 1993, plus the additional amount of P 3,000.00, as monthly installment on the salaries which had accrued, plus interest. The agreement was approved by the ELA in his order, dated March 26, 1993. However, after paying three installments of the accrued salaries of petitioners, private respondents failed to make further payments to petitioners. Petitioners asked the ELA for assistance and, as no action was taken on their request, [3] petitioner Laureles on October 19, 1993 filed a motion for execution directly with the NLRC in Manila. [4] Meanwhile, on June 15, 1993, the NLRC rendered a decision affirming that of the Labor Arbiter. [5] Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. [6] They filed a petition for certiorari , which this Court likewise dismissed in its resolution of July 11, 1994 (G.R. No. 113621). [7] Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on August 31, 1994 and, on October 3, 1994, entry of judgment was made. [8] On January 30, 1995, petitioner Eduardo Laureles filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution. [9] He filed other motions on February 13, 1995 [10] and March 10, 1995, [11] reiterating his prayer for a writ of execution. On March 16, 1995, [12] respondent ELA denied the motions on the ground that the records of the case were still in the NLRC in Manila. He stated, however, that he would execute the decision once he received the records. On March 24, 1995, [13] petitioners again moved for the execution of the decision on the basis of information that the records of the case had already been remanded to the ELA as early as January of 1994. It appears that although the records had indeed been returned to the ELA in Janua