November 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 167449 : November 14, 2011]
BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB [PHILS.] v. NIXON A. BABAN
G.R. No. 167449 (Bristol Myers Squibb [Phils.] v. Nixon A. Baban). - This refers to the Omnibus Motion for Clarification and to Recall Entry of Judgment dated August 8, 2011 filed by respondent, Richard Nixon Baban. The respondent mainly questions why the entry of judgment has been made in this case when his second motion for reconsideration is allegedly still pending with the Court en banc.
As backgrounder, the instant case stemmed from an illegal dismissal case filed by the respondent, a District Manager of Bristol Myers Squibb (Phil.). Inc. in the Mindanao area. The respondent was dismissed after having been found to be using/distributing the company's medical sample products for his father's personal political bid in a local election. The respondent countered that the 20 medical samples found in his possession, with small thank you notes from his father stapled to the package, were not, in fact, distributed causing no actual injury or damage to the company.
After finding that there was just cause for the respondent's dismissal on the ground of breach of dust and confidence, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit in a decision rendered on August 30, 1999.
On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially declared the dismissal illegal in a decision dated March 15, 2000. On motion for reconsideration, however, the NLRC reversed itself and reinstated the LA's decision upholding the respondent's termination in a resolution dated October 23, 2000. By way of equitable relief, the NLRC ordered the payment of separation pay.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On September 24, 2004, the CA ruled in favour of the respondent and reinstated the original NLRC decision dated March 15, 2000. The CA explained that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and not commensurate with the alleged infraction committed by the respondent, Thus, the CA found that a one (1) month suspension imposed on the respondent was sufficient penalty.
Unable to agree with the CA disposition, the petitioner went up to this Court. In the Decision promulgated on December 17, 2008, the Court granted the petition and reinstated the modified NLRC resolution dated October 23, 2000, finding the respondent's dismissal valid.
A motion for reconsideration was duly filed by the respondent. The Court required the petitioner to comment thereon.[1] The petitioner filed its Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration which was treated as Comment, in compliance with the Court resolution.
On April 13, 2009, the Court denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration with finality.
On June 15, 2009, the respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration, attaching therewith the Second Motion for Reconsideration[2] addressed to the Court en banc.
In a Resolution dated August 24, 2009,[3] the Court resolved to defer action on the Second Motion for Reconsideration, pending the filing of the petitioner's comment on the respondent's Motion for Leave (to file the Second Motion for Reconsideration).
In compliance therewith, the petitioner filed its Comment[4] alleging that the filing of a Second Motion for Reconsideration should not be allowed considering that if is a prohibited pleading and that the respondent failed to present any extraordinarily persuasive reason to warrant cognizance by the Court en banc.
Meanwhile, on June 15, 2000, the Court issued an Internal Resolution[5] ordering the transfer of the case to the Second Division, the same being assigned to a member thereof.
The petitioner subsequently tiled a Manifestation[6] dated April 7, 2011, reiterating its allegation that the Second Motion for Reconsideration must be dismissed outright.
On June 8, 2011, the Court (through the Second Division) issued a resolution[7] denying the respondent's Second Motion for Reconsideration. Entry of Judgment was then made in due course.
On July 4, 2011, the petitioner filed another Manifestation dated June 30, 2011[8] in support of its earlier Manifestation dated April 7, 2011.
Thereafter, on July 26, 2011, the respondent filed a Counter-Manifestation with Motion for Early Resolution of the Second Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc.[9] This was followed by the instant Omnibus Motion for Clarification and to Recall Entry of Judgment.[10] Therein, the respondent asseverates that the entry of judgment issued by the Second Division is without basis considering that a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed with the Court en banc is allegedly still pending resolution. Moreover, the respondent wants to be clarified why it was the Second Division which ordered the entry of judgment when their case was assigned to and decided by the Third Division of the Court.
The motion has no merit.
The narration of the pleadings filed and the actions of the Court thereto clearly show that there is nothing irregular in the Court processes; nor does this case require intervention by the Court en banc. A decision or resolution of a Division of the Court when concurred in by the majority of its members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon, represent the decision of the Supreme Court itself. The full Court is not an appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.[11] It must be stressed that a Second Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Unless there are exceptionally and persuasive reasons presented, which there are none in this case, will the Court allow the filing thereof and consider the same.
After much consideration of the diverse decisions of the LA, NLRC and the CA, the Court made a final ruling that the dismissal of the respondent from the company was valid. Respondent has breached the trust and confidence reposed in him as district manager and the Court has recognized the employer's right to discontinue his employment. The Court wrote finis to this case when it denied respondent's motion for reconsideration and the subsequent second motion for reconsideration. There must be an end to litigation and respondent ought to accept the Court's decision.
Furthermore, it is of no moment whether it was the Third or Second Division which finally acted upon the case and ordered the entry of judgment in this case. The records of the case bear out that an internal resolution was issued by the Court directing the transfer of the instant case to the Second Division considering that the Member-in-charge of said case was now assigned to the said division. The respondent's insinuation of a procedural lapse allegedly committed by the Court in this case is unfounded and can not be countenanced. cralaw
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to:
1) NOTE the Manifestation dated June 30, 2011, filed by counsel for the petitioner;
2) NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the respondent's Counter Manifestation with Motion for Early Resolution of the Second Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Refer the Case to the Court En Banc;
3) DENY the Omnibus Motion for Clarification and to Recall Entry of Judgment.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Resolution dated March 9, 2009.[2] Rollo, p. 483.
[3] Id. p. 513.
[4] Dated October 13, 2009; rollo, p. 514.
[5] Rollo, p. 527.
[6] Id. p. 529.
[7] Id. p. 568.
[8] Id. p. 370.
[9] Id. p. 591.
[10] Id. p. 598.
[11] Charles Bernard H. Reyes, etc. v. Antonio Yulo Balde II, et al., G.R. No. 168384, En Banc Resolution dated September 6, 2006.