ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 134936. February 1, 1999]

HACIENDA BIBIANO C. SABINO vs. NLRC, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 1, 1999.

G.R. No. 134936 (Hacienda Bibiano C. Sabino v. National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, Cebu City, and Pablo Valeriano.)

Hacienda Manalo5 is an agricultural sugarcane farm owned by Oscar Ledesma and Company. Private respondent Pablo A. Valeriano joined Hda. Manalo 5 in 1957 as a laborer. In 1972 he was promoted to security guard. On 27 February 1993 Valeriano was assigned to guard the house of Administrator Sabino which was then under construction. That night several bags of cement disappeared prompting Adm. Sabino to file a criminal complaint against Valeriano for qualified theft.

In view of the ongoing investigation was suspended on 2 March 1993 for fifteen (15) days which suspension was extended for another fifteen (15) days. Interpreting this as constructive dismissal, Valeriano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, wage differential and service incentive pay. He also claimed moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that Valeriano was not an employee of Hda. Manalo 5 but rather of Oscar Ledesma and Company Security Force. On appeal, the national Labor relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter and ordered Had. Manalo 5 to reinstate Valeriano with full back wages and service incentive leave pay of P1,130.25

On 26 August 1998 the NLRC decision and resolution denying motion for reconsideration were elevated to this Court in a petition for certiorari. In the resolution of 7 September 1998 the Court dismissed the petition for failure of petitioner to state material dates pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 65 in relation to Supreme Court Circular No. 1-88.

On 19 October 1998 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court denied with finality on 18 November 1998. Then on 26 November 1998 both parties submitted an Amicable Settlement dated 17 November 1998 textually quoted hereunder:

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

COME NOW the parties assisted by their respective counsels and to this Honorable Supreme Court hereby submit this Amicable Settlement:

1. In order to out an end to the present controversy, for the peace of mind and harmonious relation of the parties, they have decided therefore, to compromise the above-mentioned case amicably;

2. That petitioner has offered to the private respondent, Pablo A. Valeriano, to pay him the sum of Seventy Thousand Pesos (P70,000.00) as full and complete settlement of his claims against the petitioner and the Private Respondent, Pablo A. Valeriano, has accepted as he hereby accepts said offer;

3. That private respondent, Pablo A. Valeriano, acknowledges having received from petitioner on this date, the sum of Seventy Thousand Pesos (P70,000.00) Philippine Currency, stipulated in the next preceding paragraph in full settlement of his claims;

4. That private respondent, Pablo A. Valeriano, hereby waives his right to be reinstated to his former position;

5. That private respondent, Pablo A. Valeriano, during lifetime shall continue to live and stay in the hacienda house where he presently resides;

6. That by reason of this Amicable Settlement the parties hereby waive against each other all claims and counterclaims that one party has or may hereafter have against the other.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Supreme Court that judgment be rendered approving this Amicable Settlement and directing the parties to comply faithfully with the terms and conditions embodied herein.

Finding no stipulation in the Amicable Settlement that is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy and conformably with this Court's policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences amicably, the Court Resolves to APPROVE the Amicable Settlement and to ADOPT the same as the decision in this case. Petitioner Hacienda Manalo and private respondent Pablo A. Valeriano are enjoined to comply faithfully with the terms and conditions embodied therein. Henceforth, no further pleadings shall be entertained, and let an entry of judgment be issued in due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE