SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 113287 May 9, 1995

LOYOLA SECURITY AND DETECTIVE AGENCY and/or RUPERTO ACLE, JR., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, VICTOR PRADO, SR. and MATILDE TUSCANO, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

QUIASON, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to reverse and set aside the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated July 30, 1993 and its Resolution dated November 18, 1993 in NLRC Case No. 00-06-02584-88.

Ichanrobles virtual law library

Private respondents Victor Prado, Sr. and Matilde Tuscano filed a complaint against petitioners, the Loyola Security and Detective Agency and the latter's general manager, Ruperto Acle, Jr., for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime pay, legal holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, and violation of P.D. No. 851.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In his Decision dated March 30, 1989, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents (Rollo, p. 33). The award as computed by the Research and Information Unit of the Commission for both private respondents totalled P91,317.93, exclusive of attorney's fees (Rollo, p. 33).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Private respondents then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution. However, on October 19, 1990, they filed a Joint Manifestation acknowledging complete satisfaction of the award.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On November 17, 1992, private respondents again filed a Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution for the recovery of the balance of the award, claiming that they received less than the award of the Labor Arbiter. The motion was granted. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this petition.

IIchanrobles virtual law library

We dismiss the petition for lack of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is petitioners' belief that the acts of Prado in entering into a compromise agreement and in accepting an advance of P5,000.00 from petitioner Acle constituted a novation of the award adjudged by the Labor Arbiter (Rollo, pp. 10-11).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Labor Code of the Philippines does not contain any provision on compromise agreements or quitclaims in cases pending before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. However, the New Rules of Procedure of NLRC in Section 2, Rule V (Proceedings Before Labor Arbiter) provides that:

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

Should the parties arrive at any agreement as to the whole or any part of the dispute, the same shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their respective counsels, if any, before the Labor Arbiter. The settlement shall be approved by the Labor Arbiter after being satisfied that it was voluntarily entered into by the parties and after having explained to them the terms and consequences thereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

A compromise agreement entered into by the parties not in the presence of the Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending shall be approved by him if, after confronting the parties, particularly the complainants, he is satisfied that they understand the terms and conditions of the settlement and that it was entered into freely, and voluntarily by them and the agreement is not contrary to law, morals and public policies.

In the case at bench, the NLRC found that:

. . . In the case at bar, the satisfaction of judgment dated October 19, 1990 was executed by the complainants without the assistance of their counsel and without the approval of the Labor Arbiter (Sec. 2, Rule V The New Rules of NLRC). There is also a great disparity with regards (sic) to the monetary award . . . (Rollo, pp. 36-37; Emphasis supplied).

We find no grave abuse of discretion committed by NLRC inasmuch as its decision is supported by the records of the case. Thus, we adopt the findings of NLRC to the effect that the settlement entered into by the parties was without the assistance of counsel or approval of the Labor Arbiter. Furthermore, the amount agreed upon as settlement is a far cry from that awarded by the Labor Arbiter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We also note that respondent Prado executed the compromise agreement not only on his own behalf but on behalf of respondent Tuscano. There is, however, no showing that respondent Prado was duly authorized by respondent Tuscano to waive a part of the award given her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Under Article 1878 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, a special power of attorney is necessary:

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

(2) To effect novations which put an end to obligations already in existence at the time the agency was constituted;chanrobles virtual law library

(3) To compromise, . . .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

(15) Any other act of strict dominion.

Hence, being violative of existing law and jurisprudence, such settlement cannot be given force and effect.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and petitioner company is ORDERED to PAY private respondents the amount of P48,317.93, in addition to the partial payment of P43,000.00, to satisfy the monetary award which has long become final and executory.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.