Case Digest: Filipinas Palmoil & Villareal v. Dejapa

G.R. No. 167332 : February 7, 2011

FILIPINAS PALMOIL PROCESSING, INC. and DENNIS T. VILLAREAL, Petitioners, v. JOEL P. DEJAPA, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact MYRNA MANZANO, Respondent.



In 1997, respondent Joey Dejapa filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioner Asian Plantation Phils., Inc. (formerly Veg. Oil Phils. Inc.), now Filipinas Palmoil Processing, Inc., Dennis T. Villareal and Tom Madula. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed respondent's complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC affirmed this.

The CA reversed and set aside the NLRC decision and resolution. It found that petitioner company was respondent's employer and that Tom Madula was not really an independent contractor, but petitioner company's Operations Manager. It ruled that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner company.

Respondent filed with the LA a Motion for Execution and Computation of the Award. The LA issued a Writ of Execution. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution on the ground that it can be held liable only insofar as the reinstatement aspect and/or the monetary award were concerned, pursuant to the CA Decision dated August 29, 2002, but not to backwages.

Respondent then filed before the CA a Very Urgent Motion for Clarification of Judgment, praying that the CA Decision dated August 29, 2002 be clarified to the effect that petitioner be made solely liable to the judgment award and, as a consequence thereof, to order the NLRC and the LA to implement the same and to direct the UCPB to release the garnished amount. The CA, in a new Resolution, then ordered the reinstatement of respondent, and the payment of his backwages.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in reinstating respondent.


The petition lacks merit.

LABOR LAW: Judgment nunc pro tunc

As a general rule, final and executory judgments are immutable and unalterable, except under these recognized exceptions, to wit: (a) clerical errors; (b) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and (c) void judgments.

The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show what the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously render, nor to supply nonaction by the court, however erroneous the judgment may have been.

Petition is DENIED. The decision of CA is affirmed.

Popular Posts