ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 149758. September 25, 2006]
PHILEX GOLD PHILIPPINES, INC., et al. vs. PHILEX BULAWAN SUPERVISORS UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOSE D. PAMPLIEGA
Special First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 25, 2006.
G.R. No. 149758 (Philex Gold Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Philex Bulawan Supervisors Union, represented by its President, Jose D. Pampliega)
For consideration of the Court are the following:
(a) Respondent's Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw Bond; and
(b) Petitioners' Opposition (to respondent's Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw Bond)
Respondent union was the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the supervisors of petitioner Philex Gold Philippines, Inc., a gold mining company with mine site at Vista Alegre, Nabulao, Sipalay, Negros Occidental. On July 2, 1997, respondent union entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with petitioners covering the period from August 1, 1996 to July 31, 2001. After the signing of the CBA, petitioners made the employees of Philex Mining Corp. from Padcal, Tuba, Benguet (referred to as the "ex-Padcal" supervisors) its regular supervisory employees effective July 1, 1997. As the ex-Padcal supervisors were maintained under a "confidential payroll" who receive a different set of benefits and higher salaries compared to the locally-hired supervisors (referred to as the local hires) of similar rank and classification and who perform parallel duties and functions, respondent union filed a complaint against petitioners seeking the payment of wage differentials and damages and the rectification of the discriminatory salary structure and benefits between the ex-Padcal supervisors and the local hires.
On January 14, 2000, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision in favor of respondent union and ordered petitioners, jointly and severally, to readjust the monthly rates of pay of the locally-hired supervisors (with the categories of S-1 to S-5 ranks) in the same level or amount as that of the ex-Padcal supervisors and to pay the wage differentials of the locally-hired supervisors. In his Resolution of February 29, 2000, the Voluntary Arbitrator clarified that there was no discrimination in the determination of the rates of pay of the supervisors, but increased by P800 a month the amount of wages of the local supervisors as their uniform wage increase effective October 1, 1999.
Respondent union then filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals. In the decision of April 23, 2001, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Resolution dated February 29, 2000 of the Voluntary Arbitrator and reinstated the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision dated January 14, 2000 with modification that the adjustment of the monthly rates of pay of the locally-hired supervisors as well as their wage differential pay be made effective August 1, 1997 up to the finality of this decision. It also ordered that the case be remanded to the Voluntary Arbitrator for the proper computation of wage differential and attorney's fees.
Petitioners thus filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. After the petitioners posted a cash bond of P100,000, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the execution of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 23, 2001.
On August 25, 2005, the Court rendered a decision affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals and lifting the temporary restraining order it earlier issued. Applying the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work," the Court ruled that petitioner company and its corporate officers were guilty of discriminating the locally-hired supervisors of equal rank who performed the same kind of work as the ex-Padcal supervisors.
Petitioners moved for a partial reconsideration averring that it had sufficiently established that there was no discrimination. It argued that the ex-Padcal supervisors possessed the necessary experience, training, and skill in the underground mining method which they gained through lengthy service in the Padcal mines which used the same technology and that none of the locally-hired supervisors had undergone the same training. On November 14, 2005, the Court denied petitioners' motion for partial reconsideration.
On December 28, 2005, respondent union filed the present Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Bond seeking the release of the P100,000 bond posted by petitioners on the temporary restraining order which the Court earlier issued. Respondent claims that the P100,000 bond posted by petitioners should be released in favor of its employees who would have been earlier benefited by the supposed salary adjustments in the decision of the Court of Appeals had the execution thereof not been stayed for 4 years.
Petitioners counter that the temporary restraining order is intended to be a restraint only until the propriety of granting an injunction can be determined. Since Section 8, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides that the amount of damages to be awarded shall be claimed in the same proceeding, the absence of an award of damages by the Court's decision dated August 25, 2005 does not entitle the respondents to their claim for damages against the petitioners' bond. Petitioners conclude that since it failed to file an application for damages during the pendency of the appeal and before the decision became final and executory, respondent union is not entitled to withdraw the bond they had posted.
On the matter of preliminary injunction, Section 8, Rules 58 provides that:
SEC. 8. Judgment to include damages against party and sureties. - At the trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57. (9a)
Correlatively, Section 20, Rule 57 thereof provides that:
SEC. 20. Claim for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment. - An application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case.
If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party against whom the attachment was issued, he must claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by filing an application in the appellate court, with notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was issued or his surety or sureties, before the judgment of the appellate court becomes executory. The appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the trial court.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party against whom the attachment was issued from recovering in the same action the damages awarded to him from any property of the attaching party not exempt from execution should the bond or deposit given the latter be insufficient or fail to fully satisfy the award. (20a)
While it may not have filed a claim for damages before the finality of the judgment of this Court, respondent union is nonetheless entitled to recover on the P100,000 bond posted by the petitioners. Respondent union's entitlement to the damages arises only after the finality of the decision of this Court, as it would be only then that it can be determined with certainty whether respondent union has incurred any damage as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 23, 2001 being enjoined at the instance of petitioners. Verily, the Court (First Division) in a Resolution dated October 8, 2001 stated:
Considering the allegations contained, the issues and the arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or status quo order, of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 23, 2001, the Court Resolves, without giving due course to the petition, to require the respondents to COMMENT thereon, not to file a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice.
Acting on the prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order, the Court Resolves to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the execution of the decision dated April 23, 2001 and resolution dated August 29, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 57701 entitled "Philex Bulawan Supervisors Union, etc. vs. Philex Gold Philippines, Inc., et al." upon the petitioners' filing of a bond in the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) within a period of five (5) days from notice hereof otherwise this resolution shall be deemed to be no force and effect. Said bond shall answer for the payment to private respondent of any damages which it may incur by reason of the issuance of the temporary restraining order sought, if it should be finally adjudged that said petitioners were not entitled thereto, effective upon approval by this Court of the bond to be posted.... (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners added that there will be no damage to respondent union and its members regarding the supposed salary adjustments mandated by the decision of the Court of Appeals since it may still claim the amounts awarded by the Court of Appeals. The fact that the entitlement of respondent union and its members to the salary adjustments pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals has been stalled by reason of the temporary restraining order issued constitutes the damage itself, thereby warranting the recovery on the bond in favor of respondent union.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw [and/or Recover on the] Bond filed by respondent Philex Bulawan Supervisors Union is GRANTED and the opposition thereto filed by petitioners Philex Gold Philippines, Inc. and its corporate officers is NOTED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
