ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 139847. August 4, 2004]
PROCTER AND GAMBLE vs. BONDESTO
SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 4 2004.
G.R. No. 139847 (Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. vs. Edgardo Bondesto.)
On March 5, 2004, the Court rendered its Decision in this case. The dispositive portion thereof states:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed decision dated June 16, 1999 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Petitioner Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. is directed to reinstate respondent Edgardo Bondesto without loss of seniority rights, or in the alternative, i.e., should he opt not to be reinstated, to pay him separation pay in the amount equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, plus backwages for one (1) year only in either case. [1] cralaw
On May 18, 2004, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and insisted that contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, respondent was validly dismissed for deliberately disregarding the company's rules and regulations on leaves and absences. Petitioner likewise averred therein that there exist a number of circumstances militating against respondent's reinstatement, including the closure of its Tondo Plant where respondent was previously assigned. The closure of said plant took place while this case was pending resolution by the Court.
On May 31, 2004, the Court issued a Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration with finality since the basic issues raised therein were already considered and passed upon in its Decision. [2]
On June 15, 2004, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Admit the Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and attached thereto its Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
In its Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner reiterates its plea for the Court to reconsider its Decision ordering respondent's reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights, to another position of similar nature in the company at its other plant/s. Petitioner insists that the closure of its Tondo Plant was a supervening event which rendered respondent's reinstatement moot and academic. According to petitioner, respondent cannot be "automatically reinstated" to its Cabuyao Plant for the following reasons: (1) not all employees in the Tondo Plant were transferred to the Cabuyao Plant and those who were transferred had to apply for such transfer and meet the criteria agreed upon by petitioner and the employees' union; and (2) there is no equivalent position in the Cabuyao Plant to which respondent may be reinstated. [3] cralaw
On July 8, 2004, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for Clarification and its Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for Clarification.
Petitioner contends that respondent cannot be validly given the option to choose between reinstatement and payment of separation pay without a determination of the existence of an equivalent or similar position to which he may be reinstated. Petitioner asserts that the matter of reinstatement in the present case presents a factual issue which should be referred by the Court to the Labor Arbiter in execution proceedings. [4] cralaw
The motions to admit filed by petitioner as well as its Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for Clarification must be denied since the same are prohibited pleadings under Section 2, Rule 52 [5] cralaw of the Revised Rules of Court.
The aforementioned motions, like petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, raise issues which were already considered and passed upon by the Court when it rendered its Decision, the pertinent portion of which reads:
.
However, during the pendency of the case, the petitioner filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion, stating that more than a year after the respondent was placed on payroll reinstatement [,] the company's Tondo Plant, where the respondent was assigned, was shut down. Since the respondent's employment could not be maintained at the Tondo Plant, so the petitioner maintains, it was constrained to discontinue the respondent's payroll reinstatement.
Clearly, the respondent is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights, to . another position of similar nature in the company. It should be stressed that while petitioner manifested to this Court the closure of the Tondo Plant, it failed to indicate the absence of an unfilled position more or less of a similar nature as the one previously occupied by the respondent at its other plant/s. However, if the respondent no longer desires to be reinstated, he should be awarded separation pay at the rate of one (1) month for every year of service as an alternative, following settled jurisprudence. [6] cralaw
Evidently, the closure of the Tondo Plant was already known to and considered by the Court when it ruled that respondent is entitled to reinstatement at the other plant/s of the company. The fact of such closure cannot therefore be considered as a supervening event which would justify a modification of the Court's ruling that respondent should be reinstated or paid separation pay, at his option.
The Court further notes that petitioner's allegations in its supplemental and second motions for reconsideration regarding the impossibility of reinstating respondent and the lack of an equivalent or similar position in its Cabuyao Plant are unsupported by independent evidence showing the absence of equivalent or similar positions to respondent's position of Production Technician in its Cabuyao Plant, and of the lack of any plant other than the Cabuyao Plant where respondent may be reinstated. [7] cralaw
The Court is aware that the termination of respondent's payroll reinstatement [8] cralaw due to the closure of its Tondo Plant is the subject of another case before the National Labor Relations Commission [9] cralaw and that the Labor Arbiter in this second case (docketed as NLRC Case No. 00-03-03443-2003) rendered a Decision on March 26, 2004 finding the abolition of respondent's position due to the closure of the Tondo Plant to be devoid of factual basis. [10] cralaw It is therefore premature to rule on the validity of the cessation of respondent's payroll reinstatement until the issue in NLRC Case No. 00-03-03443-2003 is resolved with finality.
In any case, it is not proper to resolve the aforesaid issue in the present case. What is being assailed here is the termination of respondent's employment on June 27, 1994 for alleged unauthorized and excessive absences. The legality of the termination of his payroll reinstatement on April 3, 2000 due to the closure of petitioner's Tondo Plant is an issue separate and distinct from the matter raised in the present case and should be threshed out in NLRC Case No. 00-03-03443-2003. The Court's Decision in this case already resolved the issues raised by the parties and cannot be prevented from attaining finality by the pendency of another case involving questions that have no relevance, at least at this point, to the present case.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the Motion for Leave to Admit the Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, the Motion for Leave to Admit the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for Clarification and the Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for Clarification for being prohibited pleadings.
No further pleadings will be entertained.
Let entry of judgment be made in the ordinary course.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI
YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 816.
[2] cralaw Id. at 804.
[3] cralaw Id. at 824-831.
[4] cralaw Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for Clarification, pp. 1-4.
[5] cralaw Section 2, Rule 52 states:
Second motion for reconsideration -No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
[6] cralaw Decision, pp. 11-12, Id. at 815-816.
[7] cralaw In its Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner attached the Affidavit of Eugenic S. Florendo, the Human Resource Manager of petitioner from 1992 to 1997, which states that petitioner's Tondo Plant was closed down completely in the year 2000 and that not all employees therein were automatically transferred to petitioner's Cabuyao Plant (Id. at 834-835). Likewise attached to the supplemental motion is the Affidavit of Raul S. Nicdao (Nicdao), the Human Resources Manager of petitioner in the Cabuyao Plant since April 1, 2003._ Nicdao avers that there is no vacant position within the Cabuyao Plant equivalent or similar to the position formerly held by respondent to which the latter may be reinstated (Id. at 843
[8] cralaw The Decision dated April 23, 1998 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CA 012916-97, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated June 16, 1999 in CA G.R. SP No. 50160 (the Decision reviewed by the Court in the present case) ordered his reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and all other employee benefits. Respondent moved for the execution of the NLRC decision pending appeal, and the Labor Arbiter approved respondent's motion in an Order dated January 18, 1999. Accordingly, petitioner reinstated respondent in its payroll beginning February 25, 1999. However, respondent's payroll reinstatement was terminated when petitioner's Tondo Plant closed down effective April 30, 2000.
[9] cralaw On March 26, 2004, Labor Arbiter Renaldo O. Hernandez rendered his Decision in NLRC Case No. 00-03-03443-2003 (Edgardo C. Bondesto v. Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc., et al.) finding that Procter and Gamble's allegation that Bondesto's position was abolished by reason of closure of the Tondo Plant has no factual basis. Rollo, pp. 670-685.
[10] cralaw Decision dated March 26, 2004 in NLRC Case No. 00-03-03443-2003 (Edgardo C. Bondesto v. Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc., et al.), Rollo, pp. 669-685.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
