THIRD DIVISION
MALAYANG SAMAHAN
NG MANGGAGAWA SA BALANCED FOOD,NILO LETADA,
FERNANDO
FALLERA, DANILO ESCARIO,BENEDICTO CARREON,
CAMILO AGUILA, GERRY BAUTISTA,FRIDAY MENDOZA,
MARINO TAYOTO, PEPE TUBELLO,ROLANDO SERRANO,
MATIAS BAQUIRAN,DAVID BALLESTEROS,
RODOLFO PARAS, ROBERTO CABAELAND CESAR OLISA,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
139068
January 16, 2004
-versus-
PINAKAMASARAP
CORPORATION,
SY TIAN TIN, DR. SY TIN DIAN,DOMINGO TAN, ROLANDO
REYES AND LOUIE VILLANUEVA,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I
O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:chanrobles virtual law library
The doctrine of res judicata
is a rule which pervades every well regulated system of jurisprudence
and
is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common
law,
namely: (1) public policy and necessity which makes it to the interest
of the State that there should be an end to litigation, interest
reipublicae
ut sit finis litumi; and (2) the hardship on the individual that he
should
be vexed twice for the same cause, memo debet bis vexari et eadem causa.[1]
This doctrine applies squarely to the case at bar.
For resolution is a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil
Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[2]
dated March 19, 1999 and the Resolution[3]
dated June 15, 1999 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
50186, entitled "Pinakamasarap Corporation vs. National Labor Relations
Commission (Third Division), Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Balanced
Food, Nilo Letada, Fernando Fallera, Danilo Escario, Benedicto Carreon,
Camilo Aguila, Jerry Bautista, Friday Mendoza, Marino Tayoto, Pete
Tubello,
Rolando Serrano, Matias Baquiran, David Ballesteros, Rodolfo Paras,
Roberto
Cabael and Cesar Olisa".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual antecedents
are as follows:
The controversy herein
stemmed from the petition of the Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa
Balanced
Food (petitioner union), through its officers (individual petitioners)
and other members, filed with the management of Pinakamasarap
Corporation
(respondent company). They sought the ouster of Rolando Reyes,
respondent
company’s Production Manager and Assistant Manager. Respondent company
claimed that on March 13, 1993 at around 8:30 o’clock in the morning,
about
200 to 206 officers and members of petitioner union deliberately
abandoned
their work and picketed the street fronting its premises. Later that
same
day, the employees resumed their work but nonetheless persisted with
their
illegal activities, such as work slowdown and sabotage. As a
consequence,
respondent company’s operations and production were severely disrupted
and paralyzed.cralaw:red
On April 14, 1993, respondent
company filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor
practices
and damages against the above-named petitioners[4]
and other union members, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-04-02589-93.
In its complaint, respondent company alleged that petitioners committed
acts violative of Article 282 of the Labor Code and their Collective
Bargaining
Agreement (CBA).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners, in their
answer with motion to dismiss, denied the allegations in respondent
company’s
complaint. They claimed that on March 13, 1993, they left their
workplace
to attend and testify at a barangay hearing involving another member,
Juanito
Canete. They further claimed that their attendance at the hearing for
one
and one-half (1 ½) hours was not only with the permission of
respondent
company’s Assistant Manager, Domingo Tan (herein individual
respondent),
but was actually considered a paid work day by respondent company.cralaw:red
On July 19, 1994, the
Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision[5]
declaring the forfeiture or loss of employment status of the
above-named
union officers (fifteen (15) of them, except Juanito Canete).cralaw:red
From the said Decision,
petitioners interposed an appeal to the National Labor Relations
Commission
(NLRC), docketed as NLRC CA No. 007308. In its Decision[6]
promulgated on August 25, 1995, the NLRC, while upholding the
illegality
of the strike or walk-out staged by petitioners, nevertheless, ordered
their reinstatement.cralaw:red
Both parties filed their
motions for reconsideration but were denied by the NLRC in a Resolution
dated December 28, 1995.cralaw:red
Consequently, respondent
company filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, docketed as
G.R.
No. 123364, but was dismissed in a Resolution[7]
dated June 17, 1996 for lack of a verified statement of material dates
required by the Rules. In a Resolution dated August 7, 1996,
respondent’s
motion for reconsideration was denied with finality.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For their part, petitioners
also filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R.
No. 123976, but was similarly dismissed in a Resolution[8]
dated January 27, 1997 on the ground that no grave abuse of discretion
can be attributed to the NLRC. This Resolution became final and
executory
on February 27, 1997.cralaw:red
On February 25, 1997,
on petitioners’ motion, the Arbiter issued a writ of execution
directing
the sheriff to reinstate to their former positions the affected fifteen
(15) petitioners.cralaw:red
Thereupon, respondent
company interposed an appeal to the NLRC praying that the writ of
execution
be quashed. In disposing of the incident, the NLRC held:
"x x x. The decision
of the Commission has now become final and executory. The Writ in
question
is an order of a final and executory judgment. As such, it is not
appealable.
(Citytrust Banking Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission
and Maria Anita Ruiz, G.R. No. 104860, July 11, 1996, Second Division,
Supreme Court)."
This prompted the Arbiter
to issue an alias writ of execution[9]
dated May 23, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Unfazed, respondent
company, on June 3, 1997, filed with the Arbiter a motion to recall and
quash the May 23, 1997 alias writ of execution. In its motion,
respondent
company alleged that there have been supervening events which rendered
unjust the reinstatement of petitioners to their former positions.
Among
the supervening events was the hiring by respondent company of new
regular
employees in place of petitioners.cralaw:red
Thus, the Arbiter, in
an Order[10]
dated June 4, 1997, granted the motion and quashed the alias writ of
execution.cralaw:red
The incident reached
the NLRC which, in its Decision, set aside the assailed Order and
remanded
the case to the Arbiter for immediate implementation of the alias writ
of execution.cralaw:red
From the said NLRC Decision,[11]
respondent company filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in
a Resolution[12]
dated October 8, 1997.cralaw:red
On November 28, 1997,
respondent company filed a petition for certiorari with this Court
ascribing
to the NLRC grave abuse of discretion when it reinstated the individual
petitioners despite the supervening events that rendered the execution
of the final judgment unjust and unlawful.cralaw:red
Pursuant to our ruling
in St. Martin’s Funeral Home vs. NLRC,[13]
we referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for its appropriate
action
and disposition.cralaw:red
On March 19, 1999, the
Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming with modification the
final
and executory Decision of the NLRC. While the Court of Appeals upheld
the
illegality of the strike or walk-out staged by petitioners, however, it
modified the NLRC Decision reinstating them to the service by declaring
that they have lost their employment status.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in a
Resolution
dated June 15, 1999.cralaw:red
Hence, this petition
for review on certiorari.cralaw:red
Petitioners maintain
that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it
modified
the NLRC’s final and executory Decision dated August 25, 1995 by
declaring
that petitioners have lost their employment status.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court of Appeals,
in its assailed Decision, still passed upon the same issue already
disposed
of by this Court in G.R. No. 123976 declaring that the NLRC did not
commit
grave abuse of discretion when it declared the strike illegal but
ordered
the reinstatement of petitioners. Verily, the Appellate Court modified
what should otherwise have been an immutable and unalterable Decision.
Indeed, the same court disregarded the doctrine of res judicata.
Applying
the said doctrine, the issue of whether petitioners should be
reinstated
to their former positions (despite the finding that they have directly
participated in an illegal strike or walkout) may no longer be
relitigated.cralaw:red
In Stilianopulos vs.
City of Legaspi,[14]
we held that "(w)hen a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction or an opportunity for such trial
has
been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains
unreversed,
should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them.
Clearly,
there should be an end to litigation by the same parties and their
privies
over a subject, once it is fully and fairly adjudicated."
WHEREFORE, the petition
is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated March 19, 1999 and Resolution
dated
June 15, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50186 are
hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter is ordered to implement the
alias
writ of execution with dispatch.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, J.,
(Chairman), Corona,
and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Arenas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126640, November 23, 2000, 345
SCRA
617.
[2]
Annexes "A" – "A-10" of the Petition for Review, Rollo at 26-36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Annexes "B" – "B-1", id. at 37-38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Nilo Q. Letada, Fernando Fallera, Danilo Escario, Benedicto Carreon,
Camilo
Aguila, Jerry Bautista, Juanito Canete, Friday Mendoza, Marino Tayoto,
Pepe Tubello, Rolando Serrano, Matias Baquiran, David Ballesteros,
Rodolfo
Paras, Roberto Cabael, and Cesar Olisa.
[5]
Annexes "C" – "C-10" of the Petition, Rollo at 39-49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Annexes "D" – "D-17", id. at 50-67.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Annex "E", id. at 68-69.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Annex "F", id. at 72.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Annexes "I" – "I-2", id. at 77-79.
[10]
Annexes "J" – "J-3", id. at 80-83.
[11]
Annexes "K" – "K-5", id. at 84-89.
[12]
Annexes "L" – "L-2", id. at 90-91.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494, holding that the
appeal
from the NLRC should be initially filed with the Court of Appeals, no
longer
with this Court, pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
G.R. No. 133913, October 12, 1999, 316 SCRA 523. |