DARIO NACAR, PETITIONER, vs. GALLERY FRAMES AND/OR FELIPE BORDEY, JR., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS
1. On January 24, 1997, Dario Nacar got dismissed by his employer, Gallery Frames. He filed a complaint; the
Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was dismissed without just cause.
2. A computation for the separation pay and back wages were made it amounted to Php 158,919.92. The
respondent sought appeal to the NLRC, CA and Supreme Court, but they were all dismissed, thus the
judgment became final on April 17, 2002.
3. During the execution of the final judgment, the petitioner filed a motion for the re-computation of the damages.
The amount previously computed includes the separation pay and back wages up to the time of his dismissal.
4. The petitioner argued that the damages should cover the period until the date of final judgment. A re-
computation was made and the damages was increased to 471,320.31. Respondent prayed for the quashal
of such motion on the ground that the judgment made by the SC is already final and the amount should not
be further altered.
5. Petitioner also filed another motion asking the court to order the respondent to pay the appropriate legal
interest of the damages from the date of final judgment until full payment.
ISSUES/HELD
(1) Whether or not a subsequent correction of the damages awarded during the final judgment of the Supreme Court
violates the rule on immutability of judgments. - NO
(2) Whether or not the re-computation made by the Labor Arbiter is correct. - YES
(3) Whether or not appropriate interests may be claimed by the petitioner. YES

RATIO

ISSUE #1 The final decision made by the Supreme Court to award the petitioner with damages with regards to the
dismissal without justifiable cause can be divided into two important parts. One is the finding that an illegal dismissal
was indeed made. And the other is the computation of damages. According to a previous case of Session Delights Ice
Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the second part of the decision - being merely
a computation of what the first part of the decision established and declared - can, by its nature, be re-computed.

The re-computation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an
alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the
computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected, and this is not a violation of the principle of
immutability of final judgments.

ISSUE #2 - The Supreme Court believes that the amount of 471,320.31 as damages is correct. According to Article
279 of the Labor Code, reliefs in case of illegal dismissal continue to add up until its full satisfaction. The original
computation clearly includes damages only up to the finality of the labor arbiter's decision. Therefore, the Supreme
Court approves the decision confirming that a re-computation is necessary. The labor arbiter re-computed the award
to include the separation pay and the back wages due up to the finality of the decision that fully terminated the case on
the merits.

ISSUE #3 - The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest.
In the case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, among the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court
regarding the manner of computing legal interest is - when the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes
final and executory, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction. In addition
to this, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board (BSP-MB), in its Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013
declared that the rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in
judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum.
Consequently, the twelve percent (12%) per annum legal interest shall apply until June 30, 2013. Afterwards, the new
rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be the prevailing rate of interest when applicable.
The respondent was ordered to pay interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the total monetary awards, computed
from May 27, 2002 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until their full satisfaction.