ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 162714.� October 11, 2004]
BUEHS vs. HATAB
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 11 2004.
G.R. No. 162714 (ROBERT B. BUEHS vs. FRANCIS A. HATAB and FELIX B. PATAJO (NLRC deputy sheriffs), GENARO ALVAREZ and SERGIA E. MALUKUH.)
For resolution is the second motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated May 17, 2004 denying the instant petition for review on certiorari. This petition assails the Decision dated November 25, 2003 and Resolution dated March 8, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 53144.
Records show that Mar Fishing Company, Inc. (Mar Fishing) is a domestic corporation engaged in fish, processing and canning at Zamboanga City. Mar Fishing Worker's Union-National Federation of Labor (MFWU-NFL) is the labor union in the company and the employees' exclusive bargaining representative. The union is affiliated with the National Federation of Labor (NFL).
On June 18, 1993, Amado Magbanua, the union's Regional Director, sent a letter to Mar Fishing recommending the dismissal of Genaro Alvarez and Sergia E. Malukuh, respondents, from employment on the ground of disloyalty to the union. Acting thereon, Mar Fishing, on July 27, 1993, terminated their employment.
Aggrieved, respondents filed with the Regional Arbitration, Branch No. 09, Zamboanga City, a complaint for illegal dismissal against Robert Buehs and MFWU-NFL, docketed as NLRC-RAB Case No. 09-07-00254-93. Robert Buehs is a German national and Mar, Fishing's general manager.
The complaint was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the NLRC upheld the finding of the Labor Arbiter. Respondents filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari but it was dismissed.
The NLRC then referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) which, in turn, forwarded the records of the case to the Voluntary Arbitration Unit for appropriate action.
On May 30, 1997, the Voluntary Arbitrator, Atty. Inocencio T. Bacatan, rendered a Decision finding that the dismissal from the service of respondents is illegal and ordering Mar Fishing and MFWU-NFL to pay them, jointly and severally, their separation pay, backwages, damages and other benefits, thus:
"WHEREFORE, in view the foregoing findings and considerations, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered on the above-entitled case, as follows:
1.����������� The expulsion from the roster of Union Membership of the Complainants by Respondent Union is ILLEGAL;
2.����������� The Dismissal of the Complainants Genaro Alvarez and Sergia E. Malukuh by respondent Company is ILLEGAL;
3.����������� Respondent Company and Respondent Union are hereby ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay complainants Genaro Alvarez and Sergia E. Malukuh the following:
a.�� Genaro Alvarez
1.�
Separation pay .......P490,776.00
2.� Backwages .......� 133,848.00
3.� Moral damages ......��� 50,000.00
4.� Exemplary damages ...��� 25,000.00
5.� Other benefits ......���� 5,940.00
b.�� Sergia Enolpe-Malukuh
1.�
Separation pay .......P593.000.00
2.� Backwages .......� 184,000.00
3.� Moral damages ......��� 50,000.00
4.� Exemplary damages ...��� 25,000.00
5.� Other benefits .......������ 5,700.00
SO ORDERED."
Unsatisfied, petitioner and MFWU-NFL filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. In its Decision, the Appellate Court affirmed the Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision with modification in the sense that the award of moral and exemplary damages was deleted.
Petitioner and MFWU-NFL filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari but was eventually denied.
On May 24, 2004, an entry of judgment [1] cralaw was made.
Respondents then filed with the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator a motion for issuance of a writ of execution. [2] cralaw On February 8, 2002, the Voluntary Arbitrator granted the motion and issued a writ of execution [3] cralaw directing NLRC Deputy Sheriffs Francis A. Hatab and Felix B. Patajo to execute the judgment against "Mar Fishing Company Inc. and/or Robert Buehs and Mar Fishing Workers Union-NFL."
Pursuant to the writ, both sheriffs garnished petitioner's deposits with the Security Bank at Zamboanga City.
On February 20, 2002, petitioner filed with the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator a motion to quash the writ of execution, alleging that he is not being held liable to respondents as per the Decision sought to be executed. The Voluntary Arbitrator denied the motion to quash on the ground that petitioner has always been impleaded as a party litigant, either as petitioner or respondent, in the pleadings.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the Voluntary Arbiter.
On April 22, 2002, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, [4] cralaw contending that in denying his motion to quash the writ of execution, the Voluntary Arbitrator acted with grave abuse of discretion. He insisted that, not being a party in the case, he should not be held liable to respondents.
In a Decision dated November 25, 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that as found by the Voluntary Arbitrator, petitioner, as general manager of Mar Fishing, acted with evident malice and bad faith in terminating private respondents. Moreover, "petitioner is not only a party to the case, but he in fact actively participated therein in all its twists and turns."
Upon denial by the Court of Appeals of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari. [5] cralaw
In a Resolution dated May 17, 2004, we denied petitioner's petition for failure to show that a reversible error was committed by the Appellate Court. We likewise denied with finality his motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 19, 2004.
In a letter to the Chief Justice dated September 1, 2004, petitioner requested that his motion for reconsideration be referred to the Court En Banc.
On September 9, 2004, petitioner's counsel filed the instant second motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated May 17, 2004 denying the petition for review on certiorari.
Under Section 2, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended, no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. Hence, the herein motion filed by petitioner, being prohibited is dismissible outright.
Moreover, it bears stressing that the Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator, affirmed with modification by the Appellate Court and eventually upheld by this Court, has become final and executory. Hence, its execution is in order.
On petitioner's request to the Chief Justice that the instant second motion for reconsideration be referred to the Court en banc, suffice it to state that the Court en banc is not an Appellate Court and, therefore, exercises no appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over its Divisions, and a Division of the Court is the Supreme Court as fully and veritably as the Court en banc. [6] cralaw Indeed, a Decision of a Division is as binding as a Decision of the Court en banc.
WHEREFORE, the petitioner's second motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Henceforth, no further pleading shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Annex "F:, Rollo at 150.
[2] cralaw Annex "G",, id. at 151-153.
[3] cralaw Annex "H", id. at 154-156.
[4] cralaw Annex "K", id. at 161-196.
[5] cralaw Rollo at 22-76.
[6] cralaw Circular No. 2-89, February 7, 1989; Ando vs. Judge Vailoces, G.R. No. 88099, May 28, 1990, Minute Resolution, First Division.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
