also for 12% p.a. interest on the judgment award. His motion was, however, denied by the labor arbiter.   The NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter and dismissed petitioner’s claim for the imposition of a 12% annual interest on the judgment award for being unmeritorious.[5]   Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari. The appellate court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The Court of Appeals ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s claim for 12% p.a. interest. Not only had the NLRC’s February 27, 1992 decision become final andexecutory, it had in fact already been executed. The appellate court further noted that petitioner’s claim had already been ruled upon by this Court in G.R. No. 107131.   Hence, this petition.   The petition has no merit. No abuse of discretion may be imputed to the labor arbiter and the NLRC.   The NLRC’s February 27, 1992 decision had already become final and executory. The sheriff’s return showed that the judgment had in fact been executed.       Moreover, no discretion could have possibly been exercised on petitioner’s claim as the matter had long been resolved and laid to rest by this Court in its June 16, 1997 resolution in G.R. No. 107131.   Our June 16, 1997 resolution was clear and categorical:   G.R. No. 107131 (NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Rommel Bearneza) – Acting on the motion of [NFD International Manning Agents, Inc.] for reconsideration of the decision of March