Republic of the
PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND
DIVISION
SPECIAL POLICE AND WATCHMEN ASSOCIATION[PLUM] FEDERATION, APRONIANO ABA,
LEOPOLDOAGIR, FELIPE BAROT,
BERTOLIO CANDIDO, RESTITUTOCANDIDO, PRIMO CATACUTAN,
TELESFORO CORNELIO,GAUDIOSO DELUSTRICO, MAMERTO
DINGAL, SOFRONIOESPAÑOL, CLOVER ESTO,
ENRICO GARCIA,
GREGORIOGARCIA, FLAVIANO LIGON, INOCENTES
MAKASIAR,BIENVENIDO MARTINEZ, MANUEL
PASTRANO, EPITACIORAMIREZ, RUFU REAL, GILBERT
SEVILLA, BALMES
SIBALA,TEOPISTO SINUANG, SR., EMILIO
SOLIS, FELIX
TORRES,MAURO TORRES, SEVERINO TORRES,
ANTONIO TRASMONTE,PLARIDEL VILLANUEVA, GEMINIANO
ACABAL, JOSE
MARIALONSO, CHRISTOPHER ALVAREZ,
TEODORO ARATIA,EMMANUEL BAENA, ELEIZER BAROT,
ROSALIO BUAGAS,
JR.,ADOLFO CARBALLO, FRANCISCO
CALUMPANG, DIOSCOROCANDIDO, PAMPILO CANAVERAL,
LAMBERTO CAROZ,CONRADO CATACUTAN,
ENRIQUE CATACUTAN, JULIOCATACUTAN, LEONIDAS CATACUTAN,
ALFONSO CULI,NELSON DELFINO, LORETO DEREQUITO,
VICTORIO
DURAN,CARMELITO ELEMA, ARCADIO ESTO,
ELISEO FEROLIN,TEODORO FERRER, FRANKLIN
FERROLINO, FRANCITO
GABAS,JOSE GARCIA, LUIS GENTILIZO, FELIX
GRAVADOR,
LEOPOLDOLABE, BALDOMERO LIMBAG, RODULFO
LIGON, ERLINDOMACHITAR, ROGELIO MARTINEZ,
ROGELIO MIRASOL,HERMENIGILDO NOCETE, FELIPE
PATROCINIO,
SANTIAGODE LA PENA, CARMILO QUIPO,
FEDERICO RADONES,ESPEREDION REGALA, MARTIN REAL,
JUAN ROSALES,RUFO ROSALES, ROGELIO SAGUBAN,
FELIX SAYCON,JUAN SAYCON, FELIPE SAYCON, PEDRO
SILVA,
ARISTOTLESINGCO, TEOPISTO SINONG, JR.,
ISAAC TABALOC,
EMMANUELTORTOSA, CELESTINO VICITACION,
RICHARD
VILLACAMPAand NICASIO VILLAFLORES,
Petitioners, |
G. R. No. 120790
September 5, 1997
-versus-
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH
DIVISION
and CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, JR., J.:
Assailed in
this Petition for
Certiorari
is the
Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] dated May
27,
1994, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,
the
appeal of the complainants is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Whereas
the appeal of the respondent Central Azucarera de Bais is partially
granted
with respect to the award of attorney's fees which is hereby deleted.
Accordingly,
the Decision appealed from dated April 21, 1993 is hereby modified by
deleting
the award of attorney's fees. Except for this modification, the rest of
the decision stands affirmed.
The antecedent
facts are as follows:
In 1973, on
account of its disqualification under
R. A. 5487, as amended, from maintaining a security force for not being
a 100% Filipino-owned corporation, private respondent Central Azucarera
de Bais [CAB, for brevity], terminated the services of the petitioners
as security guards. Consequently, petitioners sued the private
respondent
for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, illegal suspension, violation of
memorandum of agreement and backwages.cralaw:red
On October 17,
1975, the Secretary of Labor issued
an Order directing the reinstatement of the petitioners with six months
backwages. This Order was appealed to the Office of the President and
which
issued a Resolution dated August 4, 1976, thru presidential Assistant
for
Legal Affairs, Ronaldo Zamora, the dispositive portion of which reads:
In view of the foregoing, the appealed
Order
of the Secretary of Labor dated October 17, 1975 is hereby reversed.
The
dismissal or termination of services of the complaining security guards
is hereby declared legal and valid, but respondent CAB [Central
Azucarera
de Bais] is directed to grant retirement or separation benefits to said
security guards, taking into consideration their length of service in
the
company or their accrued retirement benefits computed in accordance
with
the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by and between respondent CAB
Management and the SPWA [Special Police and Watchmen Association] on
March
29, 1972, whichever is higher, computed up to March 31, 1974, in
addition
to their salaries or wages for services actually rendered, without any
deduction.
The cases are hereby remanded to the
National
labor relations Commission for proper and/or further proceedings on the
other causes of action or issues embodied in the complaint dated
February
13, 1973 [LR-433] not otherwise herein resolved or disposed of. But all
proceedings relating to or connected with the suspension or dismissal
or
termination of services of the complaining security guards are hereby
terminated.[2]
Pursuant to the
aforecited resolution of the Office
of the President, a "Report of Examiner" dated September 20, 1977, was
submitted on 'the computation of the security guards' benefits, their
rates
of pay, years of service in the company, and their retirement benefits
in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the company and
the Special Police & Watchmen Association of March 29, 1972. The
report
was then approved by Executive Labor Arbiter Alberto Dalmacion in an
order
dated July 10, 1979.
Private
respondent CAB filed a partial appeal
on the order alleging that in determining the "length of service", the
NLRC examiners merely considered the dates of commencement of
employment
and the dates of separation of complainants without excluding the
intervening
periods within which the latter did not render any service.cralaw:red
On October 15,
1980, the NLRC rendered its Decision
on the partial appeal, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Order dated July
10,
1979 approving the Report of Examiner dated September 30, 1977 should
be,
as it is hereby, Modified so as to exclude from the said Report the
"war
years" in the computation of the length of service of some of the
complainants
as shown in the record for purposes of retirement or separation pay
benefits.[3]
A motion for
reconsideration was filed by private
respondent CAB but which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated
November
17, 1981. No other appeal was filed by either parties thereafter. Thus,
the decision became final and executory.
On May 30, 1991,
herein petitioners filed a complaint
for the revival of the August 4, 1976 Resolution of the Office of the
President.
Petitioners alleged that private respondent had unreasonably and
unlawfully
refused to recognize their demands thus, they suffered wounded
feelings,
mental anguish, serious anxieties and economic dislocation. They
further
prayed for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees.cralaw:red
Private
respondent, on the other hand, averred
that many of the complaining guards were already voluntarily paid;
twenty
six security guards and forty three bagasse guards were already paid
their
respective retirement benefits. Only fourteen complainants had not yet
collected their retirement benefits.cralaw:red
On March 16,
1993, two years after the complaint
for revival of judgment was filed, petitioners filed an amended
complaint
and position paper demanding payment of legal interest on the benefits
due them from the date of the decision until fully paid, and increasing
their claims for damages.cralaw:red
On April 21,
1993, the NLRC issued the decision
on the case for revival or enforcement of judgment, viz:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing,
judgment
is hereby rendered ordering for the revival of the resolution of the
Office
of the president on NLRC Case No. LR-433, LR-482, and R08-38 and
directing
the respondent to deposit to this office within 10 days from receipt of
this decision, the amount due to the following complainants [security
guards]:
1. Bienvinido Martinez P1,274.46
2. Plaridel Villanueva 5,323.23
3. Pampilo Cañaveral 2,145.00
4. Lamberto Caroz 798.60
5. Leonidas Catacutan 3,349.50
6. Alfonso Culi 1,127.61
7. Francito Gabas 829.62
8. Jose Garcia 876.15
9. Leopoldo Labe 829.29
10. Rogelio Mirasol 1,918.62
11. Carmelo Quipot 1,411.41
12. Esperedion Regala 620.07
13. Pedro Silva 1,851.63
14. Celestino Vicitacion 2,051.61
P24,406.80
Plus 10% attorney's fees of P2,440.68 or
a
total
aggregate amount of TWENTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN &
48/100 [P26,847.48].
Both parties
appealed the decision before the NLRC.
The appeal of the complainants [herein petitioners] was dismissed for
lack
of merit while the appeal of respondent CAB was partially granted in
the
NLRC decision dated May 27, 1994. Petitioners' motion for
reconsideration
was likewise denied in a Resolution dated April 17, 1995.
Petitioners filed
this Petition for Certiorari
seeking for the review of the NLRC decision dated May 27, 1995, raising
the allegation that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack
of jurisdiction in denying to consider the amended complaint and the
failure
to award legal rate of interest as well as the refusal to consider the
action for enforcement of a judgment after five years as a new and
independent
action based upon judgment. The respondent NLRC also allegedly
committed
abuse of discretion in denying the award of attorney's fees.cralaw:red
The petition
lacks merit.cralaw:red
The amended
complaint can no longer be considered
since it was already filed after almost two years since the original
complaint
was submitted and long after the respondent CAB had filed its position
papers. Moreover, the said amended complaint was filed without leave.
It
is provided under Section 3, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure that:
Sec. 3. Submission of Position
Papers/Memorandum.-
Should the parties fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, either in
whole or in part, during the conferences, the Labor Arbiter shall issue
an order stating therein the matters taken up and agreed upon during
the
conferences and directing the parties to simultaneously file their
respective
verified position papers.
These verified position papers shall
cover only
those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding
those
that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all
supporting
documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which
shall take the place of the latter's direct testimony. The parties
shall
therefore not be allowed to allege facts or present evidence to prove
facts
not referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in the
complaint
or position papers, affidavits, and other documents.
Thus, the
respondent NLRC did not err in ignoring
the amended complaint which raised, for the first time, claim for legal
interest on the benefits sought to be recovered and likewise an
increase
in the claim on moral and exemplary damages from P10,000.00 and
P5,000.00
to P50,000.00 and P20,000.00, respectively. The above-cited rule is
explicit
that subsequent claims or allegations which were not included in the
complaint
or position papers cannot be raised belatedly. This also necessarily
applies
when such contains substantial amendment which would prejudice the
interest
of the other party.
On the second
issue raised by petitioners, the
claim for legal interest had no legal basis. As found by the respondent
NLRC, thus:
The same is also true with respect to the
demand
for legal interest on the benefits due the herein complainants. The
sole
purpose of the present suit is for the execution or satisfaction of the
judgment rendered in the previous or preceding case. Furthermore,
considering
the fact that the non-satisfaction of the decision sought to be revived
is not attributable to the respondents, as there is nothing on record
to
show that the complainants took legal steps to have the said decision
implemented
or enforced and that the same were denied by the respondent, the claim
for legal interest would have no legal basis.[5]
The claim for
legal interest as well as attorney's
fees cannot be sustained since the respondent CAB was not at fault nor
was there any showing that it had purposely delayed the payment due the
petitioners. Records revealed that respondent had long offered to pay
the
claims of the petitioners. In fact, about sixty seven of them had opted
for voluntary liquidation and thus, were already paid way back in 1977.
It can also be seen in the records that petitioners' counsel had even
admitted
the failure of the petitioners' previous counsels to have the judgment
enforced.[6]
There is likewise
no evidence to prove that petitioners
are entitled to damages. The non-satisfaction of the judgment or the
delay
of its execution was not attributable to the respondent. There is
simply
no basis for awarding the moral and exemplary damages being prayed for
by the petitioners.
Considering the foregoing premises and after
an assiduous scrutiny of the records. We entertain no doubt that the
NLRC
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed
decision.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, the
petition for certiorari is hereby
dismissed for lack of merit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Romero,
Puno and Mendoza, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
___________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Decision, Exhibit "E-1"; Rollo, p. 72.
[2]
Annex "A"; Rollo, p. 176.
[3]Annex
"D"; Rollo, p. 213.
[4]
Annex "D"; Rollo, pp. 56-57.
[5]
Decision, Exhibit "E"; Rollo, p. 69.
[6]
Minutes, pp. 42-43; Vol. I, Records. |