Case Digest (G.R. No. 160506)
Facts:
Joeb M. Aliviado et al. v. Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc. and Promm-Gem, Inc., G.R. No. 160506, June 06, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are a class of former merchandising/promotional workers who sued their contractors and the principal for illegal dismissal. The respondents are Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc. (P&G) and Promm-Gem, Inc. (Promm-Gem); Sales and Promotions Services (SAPS) figures in the litigation as a contractor alleged to be a labor-only contractor.
The litigation history began at the Labor Arbiter, which found illegal dismissal and attributed employer responsibility according to the facts established. The case proceeded to the National Labor Relations Commission and then to the Court of Appeals, which in CA-G.R. SP No. 52082 rendered a decision on March 21, 2003 adverse to petitioners. The Supreme Court, in a Decision promulgated March 9, 2010 (Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo), granted petitioners' petition for review and held inter alia that Promm-Gem was a legitimate independent contractor, SAPS was a labor-only contractor (hence its employees were P&G employees), that Promm-Gem and P&G were guilty of illegal dismissal, that reinstatement was warranted, and that certain dismissed SAPS/P&G employees were entitled to moral damages and attorney's fees.
After the March 9, 2010 Decision, P&G filed a Motion for Reconsideration and then a variety of additional pleadings including a second motion for reconsideration and a motion to refer the case to the Court En Banc. The Supreme Court denied the first motions for reconsideration on June 16, 2010, and an Entry of Judgment was made on July 27, 2010. P&G nevertheless filed several post-denial pleadings (August–November 2010) seeking leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and to have the case referred En Banc; petitioners opposed these filings as dilatory. The Court, by Resolution of January 17, 2011, took note of P&G’s pleadings and required petitioners to comment; petitioners filed a response in March 2011.
In the present Decision (June 6, 2011), the Court addressed whether (a) the Entry of Judgment was properly entered and the March 9, 2010 Decision had become final and executory; (b) P&G’s second motion for reconsideration could be entertained; and (c) the substance of the March 9, 2010 findings — notably whether SAPS was a labor-only contractor, whether Promm-Gem was an independent contractor, the propriety of damages awards, and discrete factual contentions later raised by P&G — were legally sustainable. The Court concluded the March 9, 2010 Decision had attained finality, that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, that SAPS is a labor-only contractor while ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the issuance of the Entry of Judgment on July 27, 2010 proper and had the March 9, 2010 Decision already attained finality?
- May P&G’s second motion for reconsideration and related pleadings be entertained or elevated to the Court En Banc?
- Did the Court err in finding that Sales and Promotions Services (SAPS) is a labor-only contractor (and thus that its employees are P&G’s employees), and that Promm-Gem is a legitimate independent contractor?
- Were the awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees against P&G proper?
- Were P&G’s late contentions — that ten petitioners were never assigned to P&G and that reins...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)