SESSION DELIGHTS ICE CREAM AND FAST FOODS

Vs
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Sixth Division), HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
(Second Division) and ADONIS ARMENIO M. FLORA,
G.R. No. 172149, February 8, 2010

FACTS: Adonis Flora filed an illegal dismissal case against Session Delights and Fast Foods
(Session Delights). In February 2001, the labor arbiter, Monroe Tabingan, ruled in favor of Flora
and ordered Session Delights to pay Flora the following: P26k backwages, P2k 13th month pay,
P4.4k separation pay, P5k damages, and P3.7k attorney’s fees – a total of about P41k.
Instead of paying Flora, Session Delights appealed the decision of the arbiter. The National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the arbiter. Unsatisfied, Session
Delights appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC but
deleted the award of 13th month pay as well as the award of P5k in damages. The CA then
ordered the labor arbiter to make a recomputation.
The arbiter made the recomputation and so Session Delights was ordered to pay Flora the
amount of P253k. Session Delights again appealed, but this time it only appealed the
recomputation as it avers that the amount in the original decision of the Labor Arbiter should be
controlling, in short, the period that lapsed during the time of appeal should not be included in
computing the backwages.
The CA ruled that other than the inclusion again of the 13th month pay and the P5k damages,
the computation made by the Labor Arbiter is correct.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.
HELD: Yes. As a rule, backwages is computed from the time of the illegal dismissal up to the
time of actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is no longer possible, it is computed until the
finality of the decision. In this case, the decision became final when Session Delights no longer
appealed the CA decision affirming the finding of illegal dismissal against Session Delights or on
July 29, 2003. Hence, the original computation made by the labor arbiter in its February 2001
decision must be recomputed to include the period until July 29, 2003. The fact that Session
Delight’s liability increased from P41k to P253k (less the erroneous inclusions) is but an
unavoidable consequence of Session Delight’s appeal since it lost on appeal.
But does this violate the principle of immutability of judgment considering the fact that the
original decision of the labor arbiter already provided for a computation?
No. In these types of cases, there are two parts of the decision issued by the arbiter. The first
part is the finding of illegal dismissal against the employer. The second part is the computation
of whatever is due to the employee who was illegally dismissed. The decision of the arbiter is
immediately final and executory subject to a timely appeal by the losing party. As a rule, if a
decision is affirmed on appeal, the dispositive portion of the original decision controls (subject of
course to modifications made by the appellate court). In this case, the finding of illegal dismissal
stays, but the computation must be done again pursuant to the rule that the end period must be
until the finality of the decision. This does not violate the principle of immutability of judgment.
DANIEL P. JAVELLANA, JR., G.R. No. 181913/ ALBINO BELEN, G.R. No. 182158
vs
ALBINO BELEN/ DANIEL P. JAVELLANA, JR. and JAVELLANA FARMS, INC.,
March 5, 2010
TIMOTEO H. SARONA
Vs
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROYALE SECURITY AGENCY (FORMERLY SCEPTRE
SECURITY AGENCY) and CESAR S. TAN
G.R. No. 185280, January 18, 2012
G.R. No.170904 November 13, 2013

BANI RURAL BANK INC. ENOC THEATER I AND II and/or RAFAEL DE GUZMAN
vs.
TERESA DE GUZMAN, EDGAR C. TAN and TERESA G. TAN