Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > February 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 171282 : February 27, 2012] SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VERSUS EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCLARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CEASAR MIGUELA, OCTAVIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DE LOS REYES, NOMER MAÑAGO, ANTONIO BALUDCAL, LUDOVICO STA. CLARA, RESPONDENT. [ G.R. NO. 183484. FEBRUARY 27, 2012 ] SKM ARTCRAFT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VERSUS EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCALARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CESAR MIGUELA, OCTAVIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DELOS REYES, RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 February 2012 which reads as follows: cralaw

G.R. No. 171282-SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION, petitioner, versus EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCLARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CEASAR MIGUELA, OCTAVIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DE LOS REYES, NOMER MAÑAGO, ANTONIO BALUDCAL, LUDOVICO STA. CLARA, respondent.

G.R. No. 183484 - SKM ARTCRAFT CORPORATION, petitioner, versus EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCALARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CESAR MIGUELA, OCTAVIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DELOS REYES, respondents.

For the reasons explained below, we deny petitioner's prayer in its manifestation and motion for clarification^[1] dated January 20, 2012 that we consider these petitions closed and terminated in view of the amicable settlement entered into by all the parties.

As regards G.R. No. 171282, there are 23 named respondents but only 17 of them, based on our records, have opted to settle the case. In this case, we received a manifestation and motion^[2] dated January 16, 2007 filed by Esguerra and Blanco Law Office as counsel for petitioner and Atty. Lily S. Dayaon-Ireno as counsel for respondent. Counsels stated that petitioner and 15 respondents have arrived at a compromise agreement and that the 15 respondents have executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim. Counsels named these 15 respondents as: (1) Efren Bauca, (2) Noel Palarca, (3) Patricio Olmilla, (4) Pedrito Olmilla, (5) Zaldy Escalares, (6) Danilo Solde, (7) Julius Ceasar Miguela, (8) Fe R. Ranido-Miguela, (9) Hermogenes T. Obias, (10) Antonio Baludcal, (11) Renato Tango, (12) Armando Villa, (13) Arvin Abines, (14) the heirs of Ludyvico Sta. Clara, and (15) Octavio T. Obias. Another manifestation and motion^[3] dated June 13, 2007 was later filed involving respondent Dante Aquino. Thus, in our Resolution^[4] dated September 19, 2007 in G.R. No. 171282, we granted the two motions that the petition be dismissed insofar as the aforenamed 16 respondents are concerned. On October 11, 2011,^[5] we also considered these cases (G.R. No. 171282 and G.R. No. 183484) closed and terminated as to respondent Sandro Rodriguez who executed his own Release, Waiver and Quitclaim. Nonetheless, nothing prevents petitioner from withdrawing its own petition if it is convinced that it has settled its dispute with all 23 respondents. If it decides to do so, we can consider the petition withdrawn. And if it turns out that some of the 23 respondents have not agreed to settle this case, then they can have succor from the favorable judgment of the Court of Appeals.

On the other hand, as regards the petition in G.R. No. 183484, we have already denied said petition for review for petitioner's failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution, to wit:

Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments in the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 183484 of the Decision and Resolution dated 10 January 2007 and 06 June 2008, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 92132, the Court furthermore resolves to DENY the petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

A careful consideration of the petition likewise indicates the failure of petitioner to show any cogent reason why the actions of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals, which have passed upon the same issue(s), should be reversed. Petitioner failed to show that their factual findings are not based on substantial evidence or that their decisions are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence. xxx^[6]cralaw

We also note that among the remaining respondents in this case only respondent Sandro Rodriguez has executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's prayer that these petitions be considered closed and terminated is denied for lack of merit, without prejudice to the filing by petitioner of an appropriate motion to withdraw its petition in G.R. No. 171282 if it so desires.

The Court further resolves to require petitioner and Atty. Lily S. Dayaon-Ireno to INFORM the Court of the current and correct address of Atty. Gay T. Escalada, the named counsel for respondents in G.R. No. 171282, within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, (G.R.No. 171282), pp. 618-622.

^[2] Id. at 558-560. 

^[3] Id. at 576-577. 

^[4] Id. at 582. 

^[5] Id. at 614. 

^[6] Rollo  (G.R. No. 183484), pp. 284-285.