May 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 168923 : May 30, 2011]
BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ET AL. V. BROWN AND ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC. [NOW KELLOG BROWN & ROOT], ET AL.
G.R. No. 168923 (Bienvenido M. Cadalin, et al. v. Brown and Root International, Inc. [now Kellog Brown & Root], et al.). - This resolves: (1) Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration dated December 29, 2008,[1] Motion for Redeliberation and/or Motion for Reconsideration dated December 22, 2008,[2] and "Mosyon Pagdinig Muli at Suplemento Para Sa Inhibisyon" (Motion for Redeliberation and Supplemental Motion for Inhibition);[3] and (2) Respondent's Partial Motion for Reconsideration[4] of our November 28, 2008. Decision, disposing as follows:
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the appeal is DENIED. The May 31, 2004 Decision and the July 14, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77272 are AFFRIMED WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
1. The compromise agreements, waivers and quitclaims executed by the 149 Annex "B" claimants, insofar as they grant them sums lower than what they were entitled to receive pursuant to the September 2, 1991 NLRC Resolution, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. However, the amounts, which each of the 149 Annex "B" claimants have already received, shall be deducted from their claims as itemized in Annex "B" of the September 2, 1991 NLRC Resolution.
2. The amounts still due to the Annex "B" claimants and the remaining 19 Annexes "C� and �D� claimants shall be paid directly to the claimants.
3. These sums still due shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum computed from the finality of the earlier Cadalin case promulgated on December 5, 1994, up to the finality of our decision herein, and interest of 12% per annum from the fmality of this decision until actual payment.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner-movants insist that, contrary to our findings in the above Decision, (a) they were included in the original and amended complaints submitted to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); (b) they did not enter into compromise agreements with respondent Brown and Root International, Inc., neither did they execute quitclaims; and (c) their claims did not prescribe. Petitioner-movants even amplified their contentions through several letters addressed to the Court.
Respondent Brown and Root International, Inc., on the other hand, argues that the 149 Annex "B" claimants have long been paid; 14 of Annexes "D" and "E" claimants were not paid because they can no longer be located; claimants Generoso del Rosario, Dominador Serra, Arturo V. Macaraig, Leo B. Robles, and Felix Diaz have already been paid.
The motions have no merit.
We reiterate that the case is merely a continuation of the earlier Cadalin case decided on December 5, 1994, wherein we upheld the following dispositions of the NLRC in its September 2, 1991 resolution:
1. Dismissing the claims of the 94 complainants identified and listed in Annex "A" for having prescribed;
2.. Ordering BRII and AIBC to pay solidarity the claims of the 149 complainants identified and listed in Annex "B";
3. Setting aside the awards given by the POEA to the 19 complainants classified and listed in Annex "C". who appear to have worked elsewhere than in Bahrain; and
4. Directing the Labor Arbiter to summon parties, conduct hearings and receive evidence, and thereafter submit a written report to the NLRC of the proceedings taken, regarding the claims of the complainants identified and listed in Annexes "D" and "E."[6]
Verily then, the validity and existence of the claims of the 149 Annex "B" claimants and the prescription of the claims of Annex "A" claimants have long been settled with finality. The declaration made in our December 5, 1994 Decision is the law of the case from which no subsequent appeals or proceedings can depart from. This was precisely the controlling dictum that barred a re-litigation of the same issues in our November 28, 2008 Decision, and the same principle necessitating the rejection of the very same contentions raised again by petitioners and respondent Brown and Root International, Inc. in the motions at bar.
The rule is necessary as a matter of policy to end litigation. There would be no end to a suit if every obstinate litigant could, by repeated appeals, compel a court to listen to criticisms on their opinions, or speculate on a chance that there will be changes in its members.[7]
Anent the other issues raised in the motions, we have already painstakingly cross-referenced the names of petitioner-movants with the list of the original claimants before the POEA and the NLRC. The records are clear and unmistakable, 1,077 of petitioner-movants are first-time claimants who could not be the subjects of the September 2, 1991 NLRC resolution, subsequently implemented in our December 5, 1994 Decision in the earlier Cadalin case.
Petitioner-movants who executed compromise agreements cannot now be permitted to deny such execution and repudiate their act of accepting the monetary consideration to the prejudice of respondent Brown and Root International, Inc.
We cannot give credence to respondent Brown and Root International, Inc.'s allegation that 14 of the Annexes "D" and "E" claimants were not paid because they can no longer be located absent any proof that efforts to reach them, either personally or through their counsels, were fully exhausted. More importantly, such allegation is belied by the signatures of Amado Aloria and Rolico Macaraig in the Verification and Certification of petitioner-movants' Motion for Redeliberation and/or Motion for Reconsideration, a strong indication that both have been actively participating in the case and could have been easily accessed through their counsels.
Respondent Brown and Root International, Inc. likewise failed to attach copies of the checks it had purportedly prepared for the satisfaction of the claims of the 14 Annexes "D" and "E" claimants, pursuant to their compromise agreements. Surely, an allegation, without proof, is not enough to exempt respondent Brown and Root International, Inc. from paying legal interest on the award pertaining to those 14 claimants.
Lastly, the waivers and quitclaims executed by Generoso del Rosario, Dominador Serra, Arturo V. Macaraig, Leo B. Robles, and Felix M. Diaz are without prejudice to whatever amount they may still be entitled to, pursuant to our November 28, 2008 Decision. The proper forum for such matter would be the NLRC during the execution and satisfaction phase of the said judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 1397-1403.[2] Id. at 1404-1524.
[3] Id. at 1680-1696
[4] Id. at 1232-1248.
[5] Id. at 1057-1156.
[6] Supra note 5, at 1123-1124.
[7] Radio Communications of the Phils. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 139762; 488 SCRA 306, 311, April 26, 2006, citing Padillo v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 334, 351, November 29, 2001; and Zarate v. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 747, 749-750, March 7, 1919.
