ILAW BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC.

CHAPTER (ICE CREAM ANDCHILLED PRODUCTS DIVISION), ITS OFFICERS,

MEMBERS BONIFACIO T. FLORENDO, EMILIANO B.PALANAS AND
GENEROSO P. LAXAMANA VS. NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., GR
NO. 198675,SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
FACTS:
Petitioner union staged a strike against herein respondent company’s Ice Cream
and Chilled ProductsDivision, citing, as grounds, respondent’s alleged violation of
the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), dismissal of
union officers and members, discrimination and other unfair labor practice (ULP)
acts. Respondent, NESTLE filed aPetition to Declare Strike Illegal. DOLE Acting
Secretary certified strike as illegal. After a series of conciliationmeetings and
discussions between parties, they agreed to resolve their differences and came up
with a compromiseagreement embodied in a MOA dated August 4, 1998 and
subsequently approved by NLRC on October 12, 1998.January 25, 2010, after a
lapse of more than 11 years from the time of execution of the subject MOA,
petitionersfiled a Motion of Writ of Execution contending that they have not been
paid the amounts they are entitled to in
accordance with the MOA. Respondents filed its opposition contending that the
petitioner’s remedy is already barr
edby prescription because, under the 2005 Revised Rules of the NLRC, a decision or
order may be executed on motionwithin 5 years from the date it becomes final and
executor and that the same decision or order may only be enforcedby independent
action within a period of 10 years from the date of its finality

ISSUE: WONthe petitioner’s demand to be paid has prescribed.

RULING: A compromise agreement is entered as a determination of a controversy h

as the force and effect of a judgment. It is immediately executor and
not appealable, except for vices of consent or forgery. The non-fulfillmentof its
terms and conditions justifies the issuance of a writ of execution; in such an
instance, execution becomes aministerial duty of the court.Section 8, Rule XI, 2005
Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC which states that: A decision or order
may be executed on motion within 5 years from the date it becomes final
andexecutor. After the lapse of such period, the judgment shall become dormant,
and may only be enforced byan independent action within a period of 10 years from
date of its finality.Section 4, (a) and 6, Rule III, of the NLRC Manual on Execution
of Judgment:Section 4. Issuance of Writ.-Execution shall issue upon an order,
resolution or decision that finallydisposes of the actions or proceedings and after
the counsel of record and the parties have been dulyfurnished with the copies of
the same in accordance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure, provided:a)

The Commission or Labor Arbiter shall, motu proprio or upon motion of any
interested party,issued a writ of execution on a judgment only within 5 years from
the date it becomes finaland executory...Section 6. Execution by Independent
Action.
–
 A judgment after the lapse of 5 years from the date itbecomes final and executor
and before it is barred by prescription, may only be enforced by an
independentaction.It is clear from the above law and rules that a judgment may be
executed on motion within 5 years fromthe date of its entry or from the date it
becomes final and executor. After the lapse of time, and before it is barred bythe
statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action or by the institution of
a complaint in a regularform. In this case, it is clear that the judgment of the NLRC,
having been based on a compromise embodied in awritten contract, was
immediately executor upon its issuance on October 12, 1998. Thus, it could have
beenexecuted by motion within 5 years. It was not. Nonetheless, it could have been
enforced by an independent actionwithin the next 5 years, or within 10 years from
the time the NLRC Decision was promulgated. It was not. While theCourt fully
recognizes the special protection which the Constitution, labor laws, and social
legislation accord theworkingman, the Court cannot, however alter or amend the
law on prescription to relieve petitioners of theconsequences of their inaction. Laws
come to the assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleeping.