G.R. No. 145930 - C-E CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND GILBERT SUMCAD.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Order dated January 22, 1998 of Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala and the Decision dated August 21, 1998 and Resolution dated October 21, 1998 of respondent [NLRC] are declared NULL AND VOID for want of jurisdiction. Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala is hereby ordered to issue a WRIT OF EXECUTION for the immediate reinstatement of Gilbert Sumcad and the payment of his backwages pursuant to the decision of respondent NLRC, in NLRC NCR 00-10-05830-92 dated April 20, 1994." [4] The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts On October 19, 1992, Private Respondent Gilbert Sumcad filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against Petitioner C-E Construction Corporation and Johnny Tan (its president and manager). Alleging that he was a regular employee dismissed without cause and proper notice, private respondent prayed for reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights, other privileges and benefits, full back wages from the time of his illegal dismissal until his actual reinstatement, and attorney's fees. On the other hand, petitioner claimed that private respondent was a project -- not a regular -- employee, whose services had been fully paid upon the completion of the project. It alleged that the Complaint should be dismissed, as the termination of his services had been made in accordance with Policy Instruction No. 20 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). In a Decision dated May 31, 1993, Labor Arbiter (LA) Potenciano S. Canizares Jr. ruled in favor of private respondent. Petitioner was ordered to reinstate Sumcad to his former position, with payment of full back wages from the time his salary had been withheld until his actual reinstatement, pay differential, premium pay for holidays and rest days, service incentive leaves, and 13 th month pay for three (3) years counted backward from the date the Complaint was filed, as well as attorney's fees. Unconvinced, petitioner appealed to the NLRC. On April 20, 1994, the NLRC found private respondent to be a regular employee and ordered the payment of his back wages for one (1) year. However, it set aside for lack of basis the monetary awards corresponding to his 13 th month pay, sick leave pay, premium pay for legal holidays and rest days, and attorney's fees. On June 3, 1994, private respondent filed an Ex Parte Motion for Execution. For its part, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was subsequently denied in the NLRC's October 7, 1994 Resolution. Thus, on October 24, 1994, private respondent again moved for the execution of the Decision. Accordingly, the deputy executive clerk of the NLRC issued an Entry of Judgment on December 12, 1994, certifying that its Resolution had become final and executory on December 8, 1994. This development prompted petitioner to file before the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari , [5] contending that the labor tribunal had gravely abused its discretion in disregarding A