G.R. No. 109311 - ZENAIDA ASUNCION, VS. HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, PRUDENCIO AGBUYA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents to reinstate the complainant to his former position as designer with all the rights, benefits and privileges appertaining thereto, plus backwages in the total sum of P73,892.00 without deduction or qualification. Further, the respondents are ordered to pay complainant the latter's salary differential amounting to P400.00. All other claims of the complainant are dismissed for lack of merit." [1] After this decision became final and executory due to the failure of petitioner to file an appeal within the reglementary period, respondent filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was accordingly granted. After levy but before the scheduled auction sale, petitioner filed a motion to quash the writ, alleging that the items levied upon were her own properties, and that she was "not the owner or even part-owner" of ABC, and therefore, cannot be held personally liable for the judgment award. [2] In his Order dated February 25, 1992, Labor Arbiter de Vera dismissed the motion to quash and the third-party claim and accordingly declared petitioner liable to the extent of one-half of the judgment award or P36,946.00. It directed Sheriff Rene Masilungan to continue with the execution process. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed said order in toto. Hence, this petition. The petition must be dismissed. Well-settled is the principle that perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory that deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less to entertain the appeal. [3] In the case at bar, it is admitted that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was received by private respondent's counsel on April 26, 1991, [4] making the last day for perfecting the appeal May 6, 1991. The decision became final and executory upon failure of petitioner to appeal within the ten-day period. Private respondent, therefore, as the prevailing party, is entitled as a matter of right to the execution of the final and executory judgment in his favor. This Court has held that once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case whether or not said decision is erroneous. [5] Having been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction acting within its authority, the judgment may no longer be altered even at the risk of legal infirmities and errors it may contain, which cannot be corrected by certiorari. [6] Petitioner alleges that the judgment was rendered without due process of law and is, therefore, null and void because she was not properly summoned by the NLRC. The records sufficiently contradict this assertion. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly found that, not only was petitioner served with summons but she also filed an answer to the complaint in the form of a position paper wherein her