July 1995 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions >
G.R. No. 113448 July 14, 1995 - DANILO Q. MILITANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 113448. July 14, 1995.]
DANILO Q. MILITANTE, BERNARDINO O. TEJADA, MIGUEL C. SALONGA, ALEJANDRO FRANCISCO, EFREN AYAG, LORENZOABAREDES, OSCAR ABLANIDA, REYNALDO ACIERTO, NORBERTO AFABLE, CESAR AGARAO, ARCANGEL ALCOY, ROQUE ALDE, ANACLETO ALDON, JUANITO ALEJANDRIA, ERNESTO ALMARINES, MAMERTO ANCIRO, TRONILO ANDAYA, JOSE ANG, AMADOR APILADO, WILSON AGUILAR, TOMAS AQUINO, ORLANDO ARANDA, RAMON ARCALES, ROMEO ARGUELLES, VIRGILIO ARAGO, SOFRONIO ARIETA, RAYMUNDO ARMADA, FERNANDO AROMIN, SALVADOR ASPIRAS, JULIAN AUX, RODOLFO ABARILLES, SANTOS ARCENILLA, ROSENDO AGUINALDO, ROMEO ABLANIDA, CELSO ALAC, INIGO ABANG, DANIEL BABICA, BONIFACIO BAJADE, PEPITO BALBERO, ROMEO BALBERO, APOLONIO BALDIVIA, LEONARDO BALTES, PEDRO BALTES, JAIME BANGKAYA, NARCISO BANGOT, DOMINGO BARALLAS, BASILIO BARRERA, MANUEL BENEBE, EDILBERTO BERMUDEZ, ARTEMIO BETANIO, NICOLAS BIATON, GREGORIO BONIFACIO, ANDRES BOQUIREN, SANTIAGO BRECINO, JACINTO BUHAY, RUBEN BUNAO, MANUELITO BUSA, PABLITO BUSTILLO, ARTEMIO BATILARAN, ANGELO BALTES, DIONISIO BORRES, FELICIANO CABALQUINTO, DOMINGO CABENELA, JR. LEONCIO CAINDOY, CONRADO CALCES, MARIANO CALLA, RODEL CALLA, ABELARDO CAMBARE, PACIANO CAMIO, GIL CARANTO, SOLOMON CASTANEDA, JESUS CAWILI, ANTONIO CAYETANO, CESAR CELIS, JOSE CENETA, CECILIO CES, ROMEO CES, BENTIO CHING, JOSE COLAPO, ROMULO CONDE, SANTOS CONDE, WIFREN CORTEZ, SOFRONIO COSE, GENARO COSMOD, EDUARDO CUNANAN, LEODEGARO CURITANA, SALVADOR CUSTODIO, LUCIANO CUTOR, RUBEN CARINO, ANTONIO CAANGAY, FORTUNATO CALIZON, HERMINIO CADIZ, ERNANI CALALAS, PERFECTO CABALLERO, DANTE DAANG, FLORENTE DACQUEL, BENJAMIN DATILES, ROBERTO DE CASTRO, REYNALDO DE DUQUE, ANTHONY DE LA CRUZ, ROLANDO DE LA CRUZ, ROGELIO DE LA ROSA, OSCAR DEL CASTILLO, VICENTE DE LEON, LAMBERTO DE LOS REYES, RENATO DE LOS SANTOS, JOSE DEL RIO, CONRADO DEL ROSARIO, ERNESTO DERECHO, MANUEL DESIDERIO, LAUREANO DEYMOS, REYNALDO DIAZ, CESAR DIEGOR, EDGARDO DIMAANDAL, RENATO DIZON, VIRGILIO DIZON, ANTONIO DOMINGUEZ, GODOFREDO DURANTE, JULIAN DOLOGIN, RUBEN DE LOS REYES, WILDREDO ECHAGUE, ELEAZAR EDAR, RODOLFO ELIANG, LUIS ENRIQUEZ, BIENVENIDO ESPALLARDO, JOVENCIO ESPANOL, EDUARDO ESPINO, REYNALDO ESPINOSA, WILFREDO ESPINOSA, NORBERTO ESTANIL, PRUDENTE ESTO, LEOCADIO ESTRADA, HENRY EVANGELISTA, JOEY ELARDO, RUBEN FABILLAR, MARIO FELICIANO, FORFIRIO FERMO, ALEJANDRO FRANCISCO, ARSENIO FUENTES, BASILIO FUERTES, LORETO FULO, ANDRES FLORENDO, EUGENIO FRANCISCO, ROSENDO FRANCISCO, NAPOLEON FERNANDEZ, TEOTIMO GALERA, EFREN GAN, MANUEL GARCIA, TEOFILO GARCIA, AGAPITO GARON, ROGELIO GEBANA, FLORENCIO GLORIA, ANTONIO GONZAGA, JR., ALEXANDER GONZALES, OSCAR GORGOD, TROADIO GALBISO, JESSE GUIRREY, LUDUVICO GARINGO, CARLITO DUARTE, ALLAN HARTPENCE, BOLIFACIO HENRY, MAURO HERMO, ROGELIO HICETA, ROGELIO HIDALGO, ROLANDO GOJAR, ANTONIO DONGSAL, JUAN INANO, JOSE INGALLA, PEDRO IRONAN, LEONARDO ISIP, RENATO ISIP, ARTEMIO JALDO, LEVY JARQUE, PEDRO JASMIN, JAIME JAVIER, LITO LABABO, WILSON LACRA, JOSE LAGUILLES, ERNESTO LAPIRA, ALFRED LAPUT, JOVITO LASAN, NARCISO LAZARTE, JUANITO LEGASPI, VALENZUELA LEVESITO, JUALITO LISTANA, ROMEO LOZADA, FLORO LUMAGBAS, CESAR LUMIARES, OLIMPIO LUPOS, RICARDO MABUTI, JOSE LASALA, ROMEO LADROMA, JAIME JACA, DANIEL LIBERATO, JR., ADRIANO MADISON, DAMIL MADRID, VIRGILIO MAGTALAS, PASCUAL MAHAYHAY, EMILIANO MALIT, JR., DONALD MAMALLAS, PEDRO MANAHON, SUERLITO MANAO, MAXIMO MANUTA, APOLINARIO MARENTES, RAYMUNDO MORTARILLAS, LEONARDO MENDOZA, ROBERTO MERCADO, ROMEO MERCADO, JOSE MESA, JOSE MIJARES, GODOFREDO MILANES, JESUS MIRANDA, ARTURO MISAJON, RODOLFO MOGO, JOSE MOLINO, JUANITO MOTES, BALTAZAE MORERA, ROMEO MANICDAO, ALEJANDRO MIRANDA, DELFIN MAALLO, ANTONIO MORENO, EMMANUEL MACUTAY, PEDRO MANZANO, TERESITO MIJARES, FELIPE MEKITPIKIT, FRANCISCO JAVIER, FRANCIS NAMOCATCAT, BENJAMIN NARAG, VIRGILIO NARBARTE, ERIBERTO NASAYAO, ARESTIDES NATIVIDAD, COSME NESIO, LUCIO NIDEA, ERNESTO NIEGAS, EPIFANIO NINO, DOMINGO NOLASCO, RICARDO NARZOLES, ROQUE NONATO, ALFREDO NAUTAN, MAXIMO OBREGON, FULGENCIO ONSE, ANTERO ORATE, WILFREDO ORBE, RENTO ORIA, EDUARDO ORCILLA, HERNANI OPEDA, FREDDIE PALAAD, RODRIGO PARRENO, SULPICIO PAWAAN, RODOLFO PACANAN, GUILLERMO PADILLA, TEODORICO PAGAL, ANTONIO PALACIO, BENJAMIN PALAROAN, JOSE PALENCIA, FRACISCO PALMERO, ROBERTO PALOMATA, ROMEO PALOMIA, DANILA PAMINTUAN, FLORENTINO PAMOR, PROCESO PANGAN, CRESTINO PASCUA, ROMEO PATIAG, GENESIS PEREZ, ELIGIO PINEDA, FELIX PIGUERRO, VICTORINO PLANA, DAVID POLIQUIT, RAYMUNDO PUSPUS, RODOLFO MORALEDA, BAROLOME GUIAMBAO, RANILLO QUINTANA, HECTOR NAVALASCA, EVARISTO RABINO, PABLO RACE, RAMON RAPI, JESUS RAVILLAS, ROMEO RAZON, WIFREDO ROCOCO, SERGERONIMO RICALDE, FRANCISCO RIVERA, RUBEN RIVERA, LIBERATO ROBLES, MANUEL ROGEL, ERNESTO ROSATASE, RUBEN ROS, PEDRO ROXAS, PACIFICO RUIZ, FELIX RUNES, REYNALDO RAMOS, PETRONILO REYES, SALVADOR MONTANEZ, ADELIO SAGUID, ANTONIO SALES, RONNIE SAPIO, REYNALDO SANTOS, RUFO SALISI, ALFREDO SAYSON, JOSELITO SAPIO, KIEL SABASAN, JUAN SABLON, ALFREDO SACOLLES, NOLITO SADIWA, RIZAL SAGUID, DIODANTE SAILOG, FREDERICO SALAS, JAIME SALCEDO, LAUREANO SALGADO, MENANDRO SALISI, GRACIANO SALUZA, MIGUEL SAMARINGA, CRISOSTOMO SANICO, MARIANO SANICO, CARLITO SANTOS, MARCELO SANTOS, EDUARDO SANTUELE, OSCAR SANTUELE, LEONARDO SAPUNGAN, LUDUVICO, SARANILLO, CONRADO SEBASTIAN, ROMUALDO SELUDO, RODOLFO SILLOGO, EMMANUEL SODSOD, ERNESTO SOLLEZA, FEDERICO SORIANO, JOSE SUMASTRE, EDGAR TABON, IGNACIO TAMPOL, RUBEN TAN, DOMINADOR TARA, LIBERATO TATAD, ALEJANDRO TECSON, FRANCISCO TELOMEROS, PEDRO TEMPLORA, JR., REYNALDO TIERRA, JORGE TINIO, JR., LEOPOLDO TOLENTINO, MANUEL TOMBUCON, DIOLITO TORRENUEVA, OSCAR TRIBUNAL, ERNESTO TUAZON, VICENTE TERADO, LEONARDO VELASQUEZ, NESTOR VENDIVIL, FELIPE VERSOSA, DEMETRIO VERGARA, JUANITO VELARDE, MARIO VENDIVIL, WILFREDO VERDEJO, CARLOS VERGARA, ARTURO VILLAFLOR, JOVENCIO VILLAFLOR, CARLOS VILLAFUERTO, JOSE VILLARDO, RAUL VILLAREAL, MARCELO VINAS, RUBEN VISEN, RODRIGO VISITO, BENEDICTO YTANG, EDUARDO ZINAMAAN, LEVISTO VALENZUELA, BERNARDINO TEJADA, FEDERICO ALBURO, SEVERINO ASUNO, JOSE AREGLO, ANTONIO TEJERA, RENATO ABALAYAN, ALBERTO BETANIO, SANTOS ARSINELIA, WILFREDO BALTAZAR, PEDRO APOLONIO, MANUEL CASPI, MAXIMO CUESTA, EDUARDO DAGUMAN, JULIO DE LEON, REYNALDO DE LA CRUZ, ADRIANO DE LA CRUZ, VICTOR ESPINA, ROBERTO ELIZALDE, CARLOS ESTABILLO, GERONIMO FERNANDEZ, WILFREDO GILOK, JAYSON GARILAO, ROMULADO GERNA, CHARLES HODGES, SOFRONIO ESPERAS, LOWELL ILACIO, ROBERTO HERBUELA, JOEL NAMORO, DOMINGO SALON, ESTEBENSON SALOMON, EDUARDO NOLIDO, ESPIDIO SAPIANDANTE, MODESTO TERCIO, ARTURO LOTERTE, LORETO TAYAM, ROBERTO RIZALDE, MARIO OCAMPO, PEDRO DANCHEZ, EDUARDO VILLARUEL, PASTOR LAZANO, MACARIO PETATE, and LORENZO ABLETES, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GOLDEN TAXI CAB COMPANY, LORENZO ZAMORA, DONA NENA ZAMORA and DONA PACING ZAMORA, Respondents.
Enrico Berbano, for Petitioners.
Pablo Cruz for Private Respondent.
The Solicitor General for public Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; RES JUDICATA; ELEMENTS. — Res Judicata has the following elements: (1) that the previous judgment has become final; (2) that the prior judgment was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) that the first judgment was rendered on the merits; and (4) that there was substantial identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, as between the prior and subsequent actions (Diwa v. Donato, 234 SCRA 608 [1994]).
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — It is undisputed that the NLRC decision in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 was decided on the merits and has already become final. The legal conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC on the binding effect of the judgment in the NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 on petitioners finds support in Article 255 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. Said article provides: "Exclusive bargaining representation and workers participation in policy and decision making. — The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining . . ." Inasmuch as GTEWU-ANGLO was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in the consent election conducted on March 17, 1989, petitioners cannot now claim that were not parties in the first case filed by GTEWU-ANGLO, which represented not only PACIWU-TUCP but also GTEWU-ANGLO. Hence, all the requisites of res judicata being present, said principle should be made to barring any subsequent action such as the consolidated cases subject of this petition."cralaw virtua1aw library
3. ID.; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER; RULE. — This Court cannot simply disregard these factual findings made by the Labor Arbiter, as well as the conclusion arrived at by NLRC, inasmuch same are supported by the records of the case and in accord with law and jurisprudence. In Five J. Taxi v. National Labor Relations Commission, 235 SCRA 556 (1994) ruled: "This Court has repeatedly declared that the fact findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, finality if such findings are supported substantial evidence. Where, however, such conclusions are not supported by the evidence, they must be struck down for being whimsical and capricious and, therefore, arrived at with abuse of discretion."
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — It is undisputed that the NLRC decision in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 was decided on the merits and has already become final. The legal conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC on the binding effect of the judgment in the NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 on petitioners finds support in Article 255 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. Said article provides: "Exclusive bargaining representation and workers participation in policy and decision making. — The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining . . ." Inasmuch as GTEWU-ANGLO was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in the consent election conducted on March 17, 1989, petitioners cannot now claim that were not parties in the first case filed by GTEWU-ANGLO, which represented not only PACIWU-TUCP but also GTEWU-ANGLO. Hence, all the requisites of res judicata being present, said principle should be made to barring any subsequent action such as the consolidated cases subject of this petition."cralaw virtua1aw library
3. ID.; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER; RULE. — This Court cannot simply disregard these factual findings made by the Labor Arbiter, as well as the conclusion arrived at by NLRC, inasmuch same are supported by the records of the case and in accord with law and jurisprudence. In Five J. Taxi v. National Labor Relations Commission, 235 SCRA 556 (1994) ruled: "This Court has repeatedly declared that the fact findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, finality if such findings are supported substantial evidence. Where, however, such conclusions are not supported by the evidence, they must be struck down for being whimsical and capricious and, therefore, arrived at with abuse of discretion."
D E C I S I O N
QUIASON, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to reverse the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 004908-93, affirming the order of the Labor Arbiter which dismissed, for having been barred by prior judgment, NLRC-NCR Cases Nos. 00-01-00618-93, 00-03-01784-93, and 00-03-02073-93.
The Golden Taxi Employees and Workers Union - ANGLO (GTEWU-ANGLO), represented by Ernesto Serrano, as union president, filed a case against respondent Golden Taxi Cab Co. (Company) and/or Lorenzo Zamora and Jose Zamora (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-02875-90) for illegal lock-out, violation of B.P. Blg. 130, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, unfair labor practice, and payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. In his decision, Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on found that the closure of respondent company was illegal, and ordered private respondents to pay the members of GTEWU-ANGLO P22,947,200.00 as separation pay and the equivalent of 10% of the award as attorney’s fees (Rollo, p. 48). Upon appeal, NLRC in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and in lieu thereof directed private respondents to pay, as financial assistance, the workers named in the list attached to its decision the amount of P5,646,699.95 as attorney’s fees (Rollo, p. 69).
On January 25, 1993, a complaint was filed by Danilo Q. Militante against Lorenzo Zamora, Dona Nena Zamora and Dona Pacing Zamora for illegal lockout, illegal dismissal, non-remittance of SSS deduction, deduction for burial benefits, non-payment of premium pay for rest day, thirteenth-month pay and separation pay with a prayer for reinstatement, upgrading of SSS payments, payment of separation pay, thirteenth-month pay and premium pay for rest day (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01-00618-93).
On March 9, 1993, another complaint was filed by Miguel C. Salonga against respondent Company, Lorenzo Zamora, Dona Nena Zamora and Dona Pacing Zamora, for illegal dismissal and non-payment of retirement benefits with a prayer for payment of retirement benefits and other benefits (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-01784-93).
On March 15, 1993, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaints on the grounds of res judicata and prescription, arguing that the NLRC decision in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 barred these subsequent complaints.
On March 19, 1993, another complaint was filed against respondent company, Lorenzo Zamora, Dona Nena Zamora and Dona Pacing Zamora by Bernardino O. Tejada again for illegal lockout, illegal deductions of SSS and burial benefits, illegal dismissal, non-payment of separation pay, holiday pay and thirteenth-month pay, and payment of moral damages and attorney’s fees with a prayer for upgrading of SSS payments, payment of separation pay, thirteenth-month pay, premium pay for rest day, attorney’s fees, moral damages, holiday pay and reimbursement of illegal deductions (NLRC NCR CA No. 00-03-02073-93).chanrobles.com : virtual law library
On April 28, 1993, Labor Arbiter Ramon V. C. Reyes issued an order dismissing the three consolidated cases on the ground of bar by prior judgment. Upon appeal (NLRC NCR CA No. 004908-93), NLRC rendered a decision dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners argue that NLRC acted with grave abuse discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction: (1) in holding that petitioner’s causes of action are barred by the prior final judgment in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 despite the lack of jurisdiction of NLRC over the complaint therein and the lack of identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two cases; (2) in not prejudice but even entitled petitioners, who are members of the exclusive bargaining representative Philippine Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Workers Union - Trade Union congress of the Philippines (PACIWU-TUCP), to the award of financial assistance; and (3) in failing to comply with its duty to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain speedily and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure the facts in each case.
We find no grave of discretion committed by NLRC in applying the principle of res judicata in NLRC NCR CA No. 004908-93 (NCR No. 00-01-00618-93; 00-03-01784-93; 00-03-02073-93), subject of this petition by reason of the previous judgment rendered in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-02875-90).
Res judicata has the following elements: (1) that the previous judgment has become final; (2) that the prior judgment was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) that the first judgment was rendered on the merits; and (4) that there was substantial identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, as between the prior and subsequent actions (Diwa v. Donato, 234 SCRA 608 [1994]).
It is undisputed that the NLRC decision in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 was decided on the merits and has already become final.
Petitioners insist, however, that they, being members of the rival union PACIWU-TUCP, were not parties in the first case filed by GTEWU-ANGLO (Rollo, p. 12). such claim is not supported by the records of the case. The Labor Arbiter’s decision in the subsequent consolidated cases, which was affirmed by NLRC, states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
It is not disputed that on May 27, 1990, the date the company filed its notice of closure with the Department of Labor and Employment, copy furnished the complaint Union, the said Union was already ‘certified’ (in fact more than a year earlier after winning the March 17, 1989 Consent election) as ‘the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees’ of respondent company. The effect of such a certification brought about the legal mandate that hence forth, complaint Union ‘shall be the exclusive representative’ (Art. 225, Labor Code) of all the ‘rank and file employees (take note, not just the union members) of respondent company not only for the purpose of entering into a collective bargaining agreement’ on ‘terms and conditions of employment’ (Arts. 251, 252, ibid), but also in the matter of ‘rights, benefits and welfare’ (Art. 255, ibid) of the said represented workers. . . ." (Rollo, p. 41).
In their opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss filed in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01-00618-93, petitioners apprised the Labor Arbiter thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"For the information of the Honorable Labor Arbiter, the herein mentioned case was initiated by Ernesto Serrano who was the union president of GTEWU-ANGLO for and in behalf of all the workers and employees of the Golden Taxi Co. numbering about 1649, whether or not the worker is a member of the union as the law on this point is clear that as the winner of the certification/consent Election on March 17, 1989, GTEWU-ANGLO, became the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees of the respondent company. . . ." (Rollo, p. 103).
Petitioners further explained in said opposition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"What happened in this case was that, while the herein mentioned case was first filed before the Arbitration Branch of this Honorable Labor Arbiter PATRICIO LIBO-ON, all the workers of respondent company were complaints’ favor, but when the herein mentioned case was elevated on appeal by respondent company to the First Division of the Honorable Commission and was decided on 20 November 1992, the complaints in this instant case were no longer included, hence, this instant complaint" (Rollo, p. 104).
In the first case (NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92), NLRC resolved two issues insofar as the award is concerned: (1) the determination of the employees who are to receive financial assistance; and (2) the amount they are entitled to receive. In conclusion, NLRC took out those who no longer worked with respondent company before its closure, and favored only those who actively pursued the case. It limited the award of financial assistance only to those mentioned in the list attached to its decision resulting in the conclusion from the benefits of petitioners.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
We cannot simply disregard these factual findings made by the labor Arbiter, as well as the conclusion arrived at by NLRC, inasmuch as the same are supported by the records of the case and in accord with law and jurisprudence. In Five J Taxi v. National Labor Relations Commission, 235 SCRA 556 (1994), we ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
This Court has repeatedly declared that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction in confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Where, however, such conclusions are not supported by the evidence, they must be struck down for being whimsical and capricious and, therefore, arrived at with abuse of discretion" (at p. 560).
The legal conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC on the binding effect of the judgment in the NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 on petitioners finds support in Article 255 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. Said article provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Exclusive bargaining representative and workers participation in policy and decision making. — The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
Inasmuch as GTEWU-ANGLO was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in the consent election conducted on March 17, 1989, petitioners cannot now claim that they were not parties in the first case filed by GTEWU-ANGLO, which represented not only PACIWU-TUCP but also GTEWU-ANGLO. Hence, all the requisites of res judicata being present, said principle should be made to apply, thus barring any subsequent action such as the consolidated cases subject of this petition.
The Solicitor General, in his comment filed for NLRC, observes that with the exception of the complaint docketed as NLRC NCR No. 00-03-01784-93, charging private respondents with illegal dismissal and non-payment of retirement benefits, the other two complaints contained monetary claims such as non-remittance of SSS deduction and deductions for burial benefits, non-payment of holiday pay and thirteenth-month pay However, inasmuch as these claims were neither raised nor determined in the first case, even indirectly, petitioners cannot be said to be precluded from filing and pursuing these claims. We agree with the Solicitor General.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, without prejudice to petitioners’ right to submit before the Labor Arbiter all the unresolved money claims.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr. and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., is on leave.
I
The Golden Taxi Employees and Workers Union - ANGLO (GTEWU-ANGLO), represented by Ernesto Serrano, as union president, filed a case against respondent Golden Taxi Cab Co. (Company) and/or Lorenzo Zamora and Jose Zamora (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-02875-90) for illegal lock-out, violation of B.P. Blg. 130, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, unfair labor practice, and payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. In his decision, Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on found that the closure of respondent company was illegal, and ordered private respondents to pay the members of GTEWU-ANGLO P22,947,200.00 as separation pay and the equivalent of 10% of the award as attorney’s fees (Rollo, p. 48). Upon appeal, NLRC in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and in lieu thereof directed private respondents to pay, as financial assistance, the workers named in the list attached to its decision the amount of P5,646,699.95 as attorney’s fees (Rollo, p. 69).
On January 25, 1993, a complaint was filed by Danilo Q. Militante against Lorenzo Zamora, Dona Nena Zamora and Dona Pacing Zamora for illegal lockout, illegal dismissal, non-remittance of SSS deduction, deduction for burial benefits, non-payment of premium pay for rest day, thirteenth-month pay and separation pay with a prayer for reinstatement, upgrading of SSS payments, payment of separation pay, thirteenth-month pay and premium pay for rest day (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01-00618-93).
On March 9, 1993, another complaint was filed by Miguel C. Salonga against respondent Company, Lorenzo Zamora, Dona Nena Zamora and Dona Pacing Zamora, for illegal dismissal and non-payment of retirement benefits with a prayer for payment of retirement benefits and other benefits (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-01784-93).
On March 15, 1993, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaints on the grounds of res judicata and prescription, arguing that the NLRC decision in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 barred these subsequent complaints.
On March 19, 1993, another complaint was filed against respondent company, Lorenzo Zamora, Dona Nena Zamora and Dona Pacing Zamora by Bernardino O. Tejada again for illegal lockout, illegal deductions of SSS and burial benefits, illegal dismissal, non-payment of separation pay, holiday pay and thirteenth-month pay, and payment of moral damages and attorney’s fees with a prayer for upgrading of SSS payments, payment of separation pay, thirteenth-month pay, premium pay for rest day, attorney’s fees, moral damages, holiday pay and reimbursement of illegal deductions (NLRC NCR CA No. 00-03-02073-93).chanrobles.com : virtual law library
On April 28, 1993, Labor Arbiter Ramon V. C. Reyes issued an order dismissing the three consolidated cases on the ground of bar by prior judgment. Upon appeal (NLRC NCR CA No. 004908-93), NLRC rendered a decision dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.
II
Petitioners argue that NLRC acted with grave abuse discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction: (1) in holding that petitioner’s causes of action are barred by the prior final judgment in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 despite the lack of jurisdiction of NLRC over the complaint therein and the lack of identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two cases; (2) in not prejudice but even entitled petitioners, who are members of the exclusive bargaining representative Philippine Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Workers Union - Trade Union congress of the Philippines (PACIWU-TUCP), to the award of financial assistance; and (3) in failing to comply with its duty to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain speedily and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure the facts in each case.
III
We find no grave of discretion committed by NLRC in applying the principle of res judicata in NLRC NCR CA No. 004908-93 (NCR No. 00-01-00618-93; 00-03-01784-93; 00-03-02073-93), subject of this petition by reason of the previous judgment rendered in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-02875-90).
Res judicata has the following elements: (1) that the previous judgment has become final; (2) that the prior judgment was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) that the first judgment was rendered on the merits; and (4) that there was substantial identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, as between the prior and subsequent actions (Diwa v. Donato, 234 SCRA 608 [1994]).
It is undisputed that the NLRC decision in NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 was decided on the merits and has already become final.
Petitioners insist, however, that they, being members of the rival union PACIWU-TUCP, were not parties in the first case filed by GTEWU-ANGLO (Rollo, p. 12). such claim is not supported by the records of the case. The Labor Arbiter’s decision in the subsequent consolidated cases, which was affirmed by NLRC, states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
It is not disputed that on May 27, 1990, the date the company filed its notice of closure with the Department of Labor and Employment, copy furnished the complaint Union, the said Union was already ‘certified’ (in fact more than a year earlier after winning the March 17, 1989 Consent election) as ‘the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees’ of respondent company. The effect of such a certification brought about the legal mandate that hence forth, complaint Union ‘shall be the exclusive representative’ (Art. 225, Labor Code) of all the ‘rank and file employees (take note, not just the union members) of respondent company not only for the purpose of entering into a collective bargaining agreement’ on ‘terms and conditions of employment’ (Arts. 251, 252, ibid), but also in the matter of ‘rights, benefits and welfare’ (Art. 255, ibid) of the said represented workers. . . ." (Rollo, p. 41).
In their opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss filed in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01-00618-93, petitioners apprised the Labor Arbiter thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"For the information of the Honorable Labor Arbiter, the herein mentioned case was initiated by Ernesto Serrano who was the union president of GTEWU-ANGLO for and in behalf of all the workers and employees of the Golden Taxi Co. numbering about 1649, whether or not the worker is a member of the union as the law on this point is clear that as the winner of the certification/consent Election on March 17, 1989, GTEWU-ANGLO, became the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees of the respondent company. . . ." (Rollo, p. 103).
Petitioners further explained in said opposition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"What happened in this case was that, while the herein mentioned case was first filed before the Arbitration Branch of this Honorable Labor Arbiter PATRICIO LIBO-ON, all the workers of respondent company were complaints’ favor, but when the herein mentioned case was elevated on appeal by respondent company to the First Division of the Honorable Commission and was decided on 20 November 1992, the complaints in this instant case were no longer included, hence, this instant complaint" (Rollo, p. 104).
In the first case (NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92), NLRC resolved two issues insofar as the award is concerned: (1) the determination of the employees who are to receive financial assistance; and (2) the amount they are entitled to receive. In conclusion, NLRC took out those who no longer worked with respondent company before its closure, and favored only those who actively pursued the case. It limited the award of financial assistance only to those mentioned in the list attached to its decision resulting in the conclusion from the benefits of petitioners.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
We cannot simply disregard these factual findings made by the labor Arbiter, as well as the conclusion arrived at by NLRC, inasmuch as the same are supported by the records of the case and in accord with law and jurisprudence. In Five J Taxi v. National Labor Relations Commission, 235 SCRA 556 (1994), we ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
This Court has repeatedly declared that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction in confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Where, however, such conclusions are not supported by the evidence, they must be struck down for being whimsical and capricious and, therefore, arrived at with abuse of discretion" (at p. 560).
The legal conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC on the binding effect of the judgment in the NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 on petitioners finds support in Article 255 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. Said article provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Exclusive bargaining representative and workers participation in policy and decision making. — The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
Inasmuch as GTEWU-ANGLO was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in the consent election conducted on March 17, 1989, petitioners cannot now claim that they were not parties in the first case filed by GTEWU-ANGLO, which represented not only PACIWU-TUCP but also GTEWU-ANGLO. Hence, all the requisites of res judicata being present, said principle should be made to apply, thus barring any subsequent action such as the consolidated cases subject of this petition.
The Solicitor General, in his comment filed for NLRC, observes that with the exception of the complaint docketed as NLRC NCR No. 00-03-01784-93, charging private respondents with illegal dismissal and non-payment of retirement benefits, the other two complaints contained monetary claims such as non-remittance of SSS deduction and deductions for burial benefits, non-payment of holiday pay and thirteenth-month pay However, inasmuch as these claims were neither raised nor determined in the first case, even indirectly, petitioners cannot be said to be precluded from filing and pursuing these claims. We agree with the Solicitor General.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, without prejudice to petitioners’ right to submit before the Labor Arbiter all the unresolved money claims.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr. and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., is on leave.
