Facts:

The case involves Ricardo N. Azuelo (Petitioner) and ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Respondent). Azuelo was employed as a maintenance worker by ZAMECO. In March 2006, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits against ZAMECO with the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in San Fernando City, Pampanga. This complaint was assigned to Labor Arbiter Mariano L. Bactin and was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB 111-03-9912-06. After several mediations, Azuelo was ordered to submit his position paper by July 14, 2006. Instead, he requested an extension until August 4, 2006, which was granted. However, he again failed to submit his position paper by the new deadline and requested another extension until August 22, 2006. On that date, instead of submitting the required document, Azuelo filed a motion for ZAMECO to provide him with a complete copy of the investigation report regarding his dismissal. ZAMECO opp...

Facts:

Employment and Filing of the First Complaint

• Petitioner Ricardo N. Azuelo, employed as a maintenance worker by respondent ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits in March 2006.
• The complaint was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB 111-03-9912-06 and was assigned to Labor Arbiter Mariano L. Bactin.
• After several mediations, LA Bactin ordered the submission of position papers on July 14, 2006.
• Instead of filing his position paper, Azuelo requested an extension until August 4, 2006, which was granted.

Continued Failure to Submit Position Paper

• On August 4, 2006, Azuelo again failed to file his position paper.
• LA Bactin subsequently directed him to file his position paper on August 22, 2006.
• On the due date, Azuelo did not file his required position paper but instead moved for the production of the complete investigation report from ZAMECO.
• ZAMECO opposed this motion claiming that the necessary documents had already been furnished.
• On November 6, 2006, LA Bactin issued an order dismissing the case for lack of merit due to Azuelo’s failure to comply with the filing requirement—even after ample opportunity.

Filing of the Second Complaint and Subsequent Dismissal

• After receiving the dismissal order on November 17, 2006, Azuelo filed a second complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims on November 21, 2006, reasserting the same allegations.
• This second complaint was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-11-10779-06 and assigned to Labor Arbiter Reynaldo V. Abdon.
• On December 20, 2006, ZAMECO filed a Motion to Dismiss the second complaint on the ground of res judicata, asserting that the first complaint had been dismissed for Azuelo’s failure to submit his position paper.
• LA Abdon dismissed the second complaint on March 12, 2007 on the same ground, noting that the proper remedy for the first complaint was an appeal—not re-filing a new complaint.

NLRC and Court of Appeals Proceedings

• The NLRC, by its Decision dated September 22, 2008, affirmed LA Abdon’s dismissal of the second complaint, ruling that the dismissal of the first complaint was effectively with prejudice.
• Azuelo’s subsequent petition for reconsideration was denied in the NLRC Resolution dated December 15, 2008.
• Azuelo then elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming that the NLRC had abused its discretion by deeming the dismissal with prejudice.
• On February 26, 2010, the CA rendered a Decision denying Azuelo’s petition for certiorari, agreeing that the dismissal of the second complaint was proper based on the rule of res judicata.
• A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Azuelo was also denied in the CA Resolution dated June 10, 2010.

Underlying Procedural and Substantive Points

• The controversy centered on whether the dismissal of Azuelo’s first complaint—stemming from his unreasonable delay or failure to submit his position paper—amounted to an adjudication on the merits and was therefore with prejudice.
• The NLRC and CA relied on the procedural rules (in particular, Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court and the 2005 Revised NLRC Rules of Procedure) which treat the failure to prosecute or comply with required submissions as warranting dismissal with prejudice, barring re-filing unless expressly stated otherwise.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of Azuelo’s first complaint for illegal dismissal due to his failure to submit his position paper, given ample opportunity, constitutes an adjudication on the merits and is therefore with prejudice.

• Does such dismissal bar the filing of a subsequent complaint for illegal dismissal based on the same allegations?
• Whether the proper remedy for Azuelo’s first complaint should have been an appeal rather than a re-filing of the case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)