Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > January 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 192875 : January 19, 2011] PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION (PILA), FERNANDO N. QUADRA, DANILO V. BANAAG, PHILIP E. GARCES, AMELIA P. ZAMORA, ARSENIO A. ZAMORA, MAXIMO A. PEDRO, LEONIDA G. CATALAN, PABLO L. SARMIENTO, REYNALDO L. CAMARIN, NICANOR O. ILAGAN, GONZALO MANALILI, ERLINDA VASQUEZ, ANGELITA BALOSA AND ANGELITO DE GUZMAN V. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 19 January 2011 which reads as follows: 

G.R. No. 192875 (Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA), Fernando N. Quadra, Danilo V. Banaag, Philip E. Garces, Amelia P. Zamora, Arsenio A. Zamora, Maximo A. Pedro, Leonida G. Catalan, Pablo L Sarmiento, Reynaldo L. Camarin, Nicanor O. Ilagan, Gonzalo Manalili, Erlinda Vasquez, Angelita Balosa and Angelito de Guzman v. Phimco Industries, Inc.). 

This case is about two labor cases, one for illegality of strike and the other for illegality of termination of the striking employees that, although involving the same issues and parties, went different ways before culminating in this Court.

  The Facts and the Cases 

Phimco Industries Labor Association (the Union) served as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of Phimco Industries, Inc. (Phimco). In the course of the negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), Phimco and the union came to a deadlock, prompting the latter to file on March 9, 1995 a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). When the union held a strike vote seven days later, a majority of its members opted to stage a strike. The Union filed the results of the vote with the NCMB and staged a strike on April 21, 1995.

On May 15, 1995, acting on a petition filed by Phimco, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the strikers from preventing ingress and egress of non-striking employees to and from the company premises.

On June 23, 1995 Phimco sent show cause letters to 36 employees who were union officers and members, requiring them to explain why they should not be dismissed for illegal acts committed during the strike. On June 26, 1995 Phimco sent notices of dismissal to the 36 employees.

The Union filed a complaint for illegal termination with the NLRC on behalf of its dismissed members in NLRC NCR Case 00-07-04705-95 (the termination case). For its part, Phimco filed a petition with the NLRC to declare the Union's strike illegal in NLRC NCR Case 00-08-06031-95 (the strike case). The two cases were assigned to different labor arbiters.

In the termination case, the assigned labor arbiter held in a decision dated March 2, 1999 that Phimco's dismissal of the 36 employees was without just cause and due process. On the other hand, the labor arbiter in the strike case held in a decision dated February 4, 1998 that the Union's action had been attended by illegal acts. Consequently, the labor arbiter declared that by such acts, the erring employees lost their employment status. Both decisions were appealed and went to different divisions of the NLRC. The termination case went to the NLRC 2^nd Division in NLRC NCR CA 019451-99 while the strike case went to the NLRC 3^rd  Division in NLRC NCR CA 000573-95.

The NLRC 3^rd Division later rendered a resolution in the strike case dated December 29, 1998, reversing the ruling of the labor arbiter. It found that Phimco failed to prove the commission of unlawful acts during the strike, rendering illegal its termination of the employees. Phimco filed a motion for consideration as well as a motion to consolidate the strike case with the termination case. The consolidation of the two cases in the NLRC 2^nd Division was granted.

In its decision in the consolidated cases dated February 20, 2002, the NLRC 2^nd Division first disposed of the termination case, affirming the ruling of the labor arbiter and holding that Phimco illegally dismissed its employees. Then, in the same decision, the 2^nd Division denied Phimco's motion for reconsideration of the NLRC 3^rd Division's resolution that declared Phimco's dismissal of the employees illegal. The result was that Phimco lost in both cases.

Phimco was, however, stuck with a procedural dilemma. While the two cases had been consolidated, the ruling in one was a denial of Phimco's motion for reconsideration in that case. Consequently, the case was ripe for the remedy of special civil action of certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On the other hand, Phimco still had to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision in the second case before it could lodge a similar action with the CA.

To ensure that its remedies were preserved, Phimco filed a motion for reconsideration of the Decision of the NLRC 2^nd Division in the termination case. At the same time, it filed a petition for certiorari with the CA from the NLRC 3^rd  Division's decision in the strike case and the subsequent order of denial of its motion for reconsideration by the 2^nd Division in the same case. The petition for certiorari in the strike case was raffled to the CA 13^th Division in CA-G.R. SP 70336. On February 10, 2004 that Division rendered a decision, denying the petition and maintaining that the dismissal of the employees was illegal. Phimco appealed this decision of the CA 13^th Division to this Court's 3^rd Division in G.R. 170830.

Meanwhile, the NLRC 2^nd Division denied Phimco's motion for reconsideration of its decision in the termination case, prompting Phimco to file another petition for certiorari with the CA 17^th  Division in CA-G.R. SP 83569. On July 31, 2007 the latter Division rendered a decision which subsequently amended on July 8, 2010. The court granted the petition in part, holding that the employees committed illegal acts during the strike and, therefore, Phimco validly dismissed them. The CA 17^th Division set aside all monetary awards given to the employees in the termination case. From this decision, the Union lodged the present petition before this Court, seeking the reversal of the decision of the CA 17^th Division and reinstatement and payment of backwages to its dismissed members.

As stated earlier, Phimco filed an earlier petition in the strike case before this Court's 3^rd Division in G.R. 170830. In a decision dated August 11, 2010, the 3^rd Division held that Phimco had just cause to dismiss the affected union members, finding that unlawful acts were committed during the strike. It found, however, that Phimco failed to observe the due process requirements for dismissing the employees as they were given practically no opportunity to be heard. For this reason, the 3^rd Division affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter that declared the strike illegal, resulting in the subject strikers' loss of employment status, but with the modification that they were held entitled to nominal damages for Phimco's failure to observe due process in their dismissal.

Considering that the decision of this Court's 3^rd Division in G.R. 170830 has already become final and executory and that the parties and the issues involved in the present petition are the same as those involved in that earlier case, res judicata voids the decision of the CA 17^th Division in CA-G.R. SP 83569 and bars a further consideration of the present case.

WHEREFORE, the Court PARTLY GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE as void the decision of the CA 17^th Division in CA-G.R. SP 83569 on ground of res judicata. The Court DENIES the same petition in other respects for the same reason.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court