ON JUNE 26, 2015, the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole)-National Capital Region (NCR) issued an order directing respondents Kentex Manufacturing Corp. (Kentex) and/or Beato C. Ang and/or Ong King Guan to pay Louie Andaya and 56 other similarly situated employees an aggregate amount of P1,440,641.39.
On July 3, 2015, only Ong moved for reconsideration of the order. The Dole-NCR director ruled that Ong’s motion for reconsideration was not the proper remedy but an appeal to the Dole Secretary within 10 days from receipt of the order. From this order, respondents Kentex and Ong filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court assailing among others, the order of June 26, 2015. Among the errors they assigned was the Dole-NCR’s finding that Ong was solidarily liable with Kentex for the monetary awards due to the workers.
The CA affirmed the June 26, 2015 order of the Dole-NCR but with the modification that respondent Ong King Guan is not liable for the monetary awards specified in the order.
Did the CA err in modifying the DOLE-NCR order?
Ruling: Yes.
Both the Dole-NCR and the CA correctly ruled that the June 26, 2015 order had already become final and executory in view of the failure of respondents Kentex and Ong to appeal therefrom to the Secretary of Labor. Notice ought to be taken of the fact that, at the time the Dole-NCR rendered its ruling, Department Order 131-13 Series of 201325 was the applicable rule of procedure.
Here, instead of filing an appeal with the Dole Secretary, Ong moved for a reconsideration of the subject order; needless to say, this did not halt or stop the running of the period to elevate the matter to the Dole Secretary.
Indeed, the Dole-NCR took no action at all on Ong’s motion for reconsideration; in fact, it categorically informed Ong that his resort to the filing of a motion for reconsideration was procedurally infirm. The June 26, 2015 order having become final, it could no longer be altered or modified by discharging or releasing Ong from his accountability.
Thus, it is self-evident that the CA committed serious error when it ordered the discharge or release of Ong from the obligations of Kentex. The reason is elemental in its simplicity: contrary to settled, unrelenting jurisprudence, it unconsciously and egregiously sought to alter and modify, as indeed it altered and modified, an already final and executory verdict.
In the absence of any showing that the CA’s modification or alteration of the subject order falls within the exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments, the Dole-NCR’s June 26, 2015 order must be upheld and respected. (Department of Labor and Employment vs. Kentex Manufacturing Corp. and Ong King Guan, G.R. 233781, July 8, 2019).