FACTS:

Dario Nacar, the petitioner, filed a constructive dismissal complaint against Gallery Frames (GF) and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr., the respondents. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, awarding him backwages and separation pay. Respondents appealed to the NLRC, but their appeal was dismissed. They then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which was also dismissed. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. They sought relief before the Supreme Court, but their petition was denied as well. The case was referred back to the Labor Arbiter for execution, and a pre-execution conference was scheduled, but respondents did not appear. Petitioner filed a Motion for Correct Computation, resulting in a recomputed amount of backwages. A Writ of Execution was issued, but respondents filed a Motion to Quash which was denied. Respondents appealed before the NLRC, and their appeal was granted, leading to a recomputation of the judgment award. Another pre-execution conference was held, but respondents did not appear on time. Petitioner requested an Alias Writ of Execution to enforce the revised judgment award. The Computation and Examination Unit reassessed the judgment award to a lower amount, which was then issued as a writ of execution. Petitioner moved for the re-computation, and it was granted, including appropriate interests.

The main issue in the case is whether the computation made by the Labor Arbiter in the decision should be final or if there should be a recomputation. The Labor Arbiter's decision granted backwages and separation pay to the petitioner until the promulgation of the decision. The decision became final and executory in May 2002. However, when the Labor Arbiter ordered enforcement of the decision in 2005, it was only up to a certain amount. The petitioner appealed to the NLRC but was denied, so he sought recourse before the CA, which also denied the petition. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. As a result, the petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a re-computation of backwages beyond the initial decision date is valid and necessary in cases of illegal dismissal.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on the monetary awards from the finality of the decision until full payment by the respondents.

RULING:

1. Yes, a re-computation of backwages beyond the initial decision date is valid and necessary. The re-computation is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of dismissal declared by the Labor Arbiter, and it does not violate the principle of immutability of judgments. The Final and Executory decision means backwages and separation pay are computed up to that date, not just until the initial judgment.

2. Yes, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of interest. The interest is due from the time the decision became final and executory until its satisfaction, at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from May 27, 2002 to June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.

PRINCIPLES:

1. Re-computation of Backwages In cases of illegal dismissal, backwages and separation pay must be re-computed up to the finality of the decision or until full satisfaction, not just up to the date of the initial judgment (Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals).

2. Immutability of Judgments The recomputation of monetary consequences of an illegal dismissal is not a violation of the principle of immutability of judgments. The ruling of illegality stands, and only the computation of monetary consequences is affected.

3. Interest Rates on Monetary Awards Legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum applies from the date the decision becomes final and executory until June 30, 2013. From July 1, 2013, the interest rate is adjusted to six percent (6%) per annum (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals; BSP-MB Circular No. 799).