January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 173651 : January 25, 2012]
CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. MARY ANN MONGCAL, GREGORIA/GLORIA YUSON, VICENTE LEGASPI, RAYMUNDO ASAR, LINET CRUZ, VICENTE DESALES, JOSEPH TUTOP, DANNY OBERIO, LUISITO VILLAMOR, JOSE ROBERTO REGALADO, RUFO DEITA, JR., ROUSINNI KIM HISONA, LOLITA CASTRO, ANANITA TANGENTE, EMILY DE GUZMAN, CAROLINA LADRILLO, WILMA SUGATON, ROSEBEL NARCISO AND ELNA DE PEDRO
G.R. No. 173651 (Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Mary Ann Mongcal,[1] Gregoria/Gloria Yuson,[2] Vicente Legaspi, Raymundo Asar,[3] Linet Cruz, Vicente Desales, Joseph Tutop, Danny Oberio, Luisito Villamor, Jose Roberto Regalado, Rufo Deita, Jr.,[4] Rousinni Kim Hisona, Lolita Castro, Ananita Tangente,[5] Emily de Guzman, Carolina[6] Ladrillo, Wilma Sugaton, Rosebel Narciso and Elna de Pedro[7]). - Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Approval of Compromise Agreement with Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by herein petitioner and respondents Danny Oberio, Rufo Deita, Jr., Elna de Pedro, Rosebel Narciso, Jose Roberto Regalado, Luisito Villamor, the heirs of Ananita Tangente as represented by one Jovanna T. Panes, Wilma Sugaton, Carolina Ladrillo, Lolita Castro and Emily de Guzman.cralaw
The instant petition for review on certiorari arose from a complaint for violation of labor standards laws filed by herein respondents against herein petitioner with the Regional Office No. VI of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). After inspections were made, the Labor Inspector of the DOLE found that petitioner is guilty of violating various labor standards laws as well as occupational safety and health standards. As a result, the Officer-in-Charge-Director of the Regional Office No. VI of the DOLE issued two Orders directing petitioner to pay respondents various amounts representing their unpaid wages. Petitioner was also ordered to correct its deficiencies with respect to its working environment and/or occupational safety and health standards.
However, on petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the Regional Director of the DOLE set aside its Order holding that the issue of employer-employee relationship must first be resolved. The DOLE Regional Director then certified the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for appropriate action.
Respondents appealed the case to the Secretary of the DOLE.
Subsequently, the DOLE Secretary issued an Order setting aside the Order of the DOLE Regional Director which granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration and reinstated the latter's Order directing the payment of respondents' unpaid wages.
Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals contending that the DOLE Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Order.
On December 7, 2005, the CA rendered its Decision dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Hence, the instant petition.
On April 22, 2009, herein petitioner, together with respondents Mary Ann Mongcal, Gregoria Yuson, Linet Cruz, Joseph Tutop, Vicente Legaspi, Reynaldo Asar and Vicente Desales, filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Compromise Agreement with Joint Motion to Dismiss.
In a Resolution dated July 20, 2009, this Court approved the abovementioned Compromise Agreement and directed the dismissal of the petition with respect to the abovenamed respondents who were parties to the Agreement.
Petitioner and some of the remaining respondents are now again before this Court seeking the Approval of two similar agreements.
The first agreement signed by respondents Oberio, Deita, Jr., De Pedro, Narciso, Regalado, Villamor and the heirs of Tangente reads as follows:
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
COME NOW THE PARTIES, and unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully submits the following Compromise Agreement containing their covenant as follows:
1. That the parties after mature consideration of their respective positions have come to an agreement to thresh out their differences and settle the matter amicabl[y] with the end [in] view of terminating the controversy.
2. That therefore, the parties agree and compromise as they have agreed and compromised that respondents shall pay the complainants, upon execution thereof, the sum of THREE MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR AND 81/100 PESOS (Php3,917,854.81), as full, final and complete settlement of the claims of the Complainant[s] arising from and/or as a consequence of their employment with the respondents including their claims and/or awards made in the above-subject case.
3. That consequently, complainants by these presents do hereby acknowledge and receive from respondents the aforesaid sum as full, final and complete settlement of all their claims against respondents, and therefore, quitclaim and release, now and forever, the respondents from any and all claims and causes of actions arising out of or in connection with the above-entitled case.
4. That the parties further agree that all other claims and causes of action the parties may have against each other are hereby waived and renounced.
5. The parties further agree that with the execution of this agreement, they shall jointly move for the dismissal of
a. G.R. No. 168424 (NLRC RAB Case No. 06-10-10900-99) the above-entitled case Danny Oberio, et al. vs. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. (Bombo Radyo) DYWB-Bacolod City, Rogelio Florete and Wilfredo Alejaga which was decided by the Supreme Court, Third Division on June 8, 2007;
b. G.R. No. 173651 entitled "Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc., Petitioner, versus Secretary of Labor and Employment, Mary Ann Mongcal, et al., Respondents" pending before the Supreme Court Third Division;
c. All other cases or incidents arising from, related to, or by reason of the instant case.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the parties most Respectfully pray that the foregoing Compromise Agreement be approved the same not being contrary to laws, morals, good custom and public policy.
The parties further pray the instant case and all pending incidents related thereto which are within the jurisdiction and authority of this Honorable Office be dismissed.
Bacolod City, Negros, Occidental, Philippines, September 05, 2011.
In the same manner, another similarly worded agreement signed by respondents Sugaton, Ladrillo, Castro and De Guzman reads, thus:
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
COME NOW THE PARTIES, and unto this Honorable Commission most respectfully submit the following Compromise Agreement that:
1. The parties after mature consideration of their respective positions have come to an agreement to thresh out their differences and settle the matter amicably with the end [in] view of terminating the controversy;
2. The parties agree that respondents shall pay the undersigned complainants upon execution thereof, the sum of PHP ONE MILLION THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO AND 38/100 (Php 1,036,282.38) as full, final and complete settlement of their claims arising from and/or as a consequence of their employment with the respondents, including their claims and/or awards made in the above-subject case.
3. That consequently, complainant[s] hereby by these presents, acknowledge and receive from respondents the aforesaid sum as full, final and complete settlement of all their claims against respondents, and therefore, quitclaim and release, now and forever, the respondents from any and all claims.
4. That the parties further agree that all other claims the parties may have are hereby waived and renounced.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the parties most respectfully pray that the foregoing Compromise Agreement be approved, the same not being contrary to laws, morals, good custom[s] and public policy.
The parties further pray the instant case and all pending incidents related thereto which are within the jurisdiction and authority of this Honorable Office be dismissed.
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, April 13, 2010.
Article 2028 of the Civil Code provides that a compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Under Article 1306 of the same Code, contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they deem convenient, provided that these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. The law not merely authorizes, but even encourages, the amicable settlement of disputes between parties and it does not limit such compromise to cases about to be filed but also to cases already pending in court.[8]
In the instant case, the Court finds that the above Compromise Agreements are validly executed and not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the above-quoted Compromise Agreements are hereby APPROVED.
The petition is DISMISSED insofar as respondents Danny Oberio, Rufo Deita, Jr., Elna de Pedro, Rosebel Narciso, Jose Roberto Regalado, Luisito Villamor, Ananita Tangente, Wilma Sugaton, Carolina Ladrillo, Lolita Castro and Emily de Guzman are concerned.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Also spelled as Moncal in other parts of the rollo.[2] Also spelled as Juson in other parts of the rollo.
[3] The name also appears as Reynaldo Asan in other parts of the rollo.
[4] Also spelled as Dieta, Jr. in other parts of the rollo.
[5] Also spelled as Tangete in other parts of the rollo.
[6] The name also appears as Caroline Ladrillo in other parts of the rollo.
[7] Per Resolution of this Court dated March 10, 2008, the Secretary of Labor and Employment was excluded as respondent, being a mere nominal party to the case.
[8] See Articles 211 and 221, Labor Code of the Philippines; Article 2029, Civil Code of the Philippines; Heirs of Alfredo Zabala v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189602, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 387, 391; First Intramuros BF Condominium Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 103638, April 14, 1994, 231 SCRA 644, 649.
