NACAR VS GALLERY FRAMES

FACTS
Dario Nacar filed a labor case against Gallery Frames and its owner Felipe
Bordey, Jr. Nacar alleged that he was dismissed without cause by Gallery
Frames on January 24, 1997. On October 15, 1998, the Labor Arbiter (LA)
found Gallery Frames guilty of illegal dismissal hence the Arbiter awarded
Nacar P158,919.92 in damages consisting of backwages and separation pay.

Gallery Frames appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (SC). The
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the decision
became final on May 27, 2002.

After the finality of the SC decision, Nacar filed a motion before the LA for
recomputation as he alleged that his backwages should be computed from
the time of his illegal dismissal (January 24, 1997) until the finality of the SC
decision (May 27, 2002) with interest. The LA denied the motion as he ruled
that the reckoning point of the computation should only be from the time
Nacar was illegally dismissed (January 24, 1997) until the decision of the LA
(October 15, 1998). The LA reasoned that the said date should be the
reckoning point because Nacar did not appeal hence as to him, that decision
became final and executory.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter is correct.

RULING
No. There are two parts of a decision when it comes to illegal dismissal cases
(referring to cases where the dismissed employee wins, or loses but wins on
appeal). The first part is the ruling that the employee was illegally dismissed.
This is immediately final even if the employer appeals – but will be reversed
if employer wins on appeal. The second part is the ruling on the award of
backwages and/or separation pay. For backwages, it will be computed from
the date of illegal dismissal until the date of the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
But if the employer appeals, then the end date shall be extended until the
day when the appellate court’s decision shall become final. Hence, as a
consequence, the liability of the employer, if he loses on appeal, will increase
– this is just but a risk that the employer cannot avoid when it continued to
seek recourses against the Labor Arbiter’s decision. This is also in
accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code.

Anent the issue of award of interest in the form of actual or compensatory

damages, the Supreme Court ruled that the old case of Eastern Shipping
Lines vs CA is already modified by the promulgation of the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Resolution No. 796 which lowered the legal rate
of interest from 12% to 6%. Specifically, the rules on interest are now as
follows:

1. Monetary Obligations ex. Loans:

2. If stipulated in writing:
a.1. shall run from date of judicial demand (filing of the case)
a.2. rate of interest shall be that amount stipulated
1. If not stipulated in writing
b.1. shall run from date of default (either failure to pay upon extra-judicial
demand or upon judicial demand whichever is appropriate and subject to the
provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code)
b.2. rate of interest shall be 6% per annum

2. Non-Monetary Obligations (such as the case at bar)

3. If already liquidated, rate of interest shall be 6% per annum,
demandable from date of judicial or extra-judicial demand (Art. 1169,
Civil Code)
4. If unliquidated, no interest
Except: When later on established with certainty. Interest shall still be 6%
per annum demandable from the date of judgment because such on such
date, it is already deemed that the amount of damages is already
ascertained.

3. Compounded Interest
– This is applicable to both monetary and non-monetary obligations
– 6% per annum computed against award of damages (interest) granted by
the court. To be computed from the date when the court’s decision becomes
final and executory until the award is fully satisfied by the losing party.

4. The 6% per annum rate of legal interest shall be applied prospectively:

– Final and executory judgments awarding damages prior to July 1, 2013
shall apply the 12% rate;
– Final and executory judgments awarding damages on or after July 1, 2013
shall apply the 12% rate for unpaid obligations until June 30, 2013; unpaid
obligations with respect to said judgments on or after July 1, 2013 shall still
incur the 6% rate.