Case Digest (G.R. No. 167484)
Facts:
Hernando Borra, et al. v. Court of Appeals Second and Nineteenth Divisions and Hawaiian Philippine Company, G.R. No. 167484, September 09, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (a group of former workers) filed two complaints with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI on September 12, 1997, docketed as RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 (seeking confirmation as regular employees of Hawaiian Philippine Company and attendant benefits) and RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 (seeking monetary benefits against Hawaiian Philippine Company and Fela Contractor). On October 16, 1997, Hawaiian Philippine Company (private respondent) moved to consolidate the cases; the Labor Arbiter denied consolidation on October 20, 1997.
On January 9, 1998, private respondent moved to dismiss RAB No. 06-09-10698-97 on grounds including res judicata, relying on an earlier matter (the Perez case, RAB No. 06-04-10169-95). The Labor Arbiter granted that motion in an order dated July 9, 1998, but the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s order, reinstated RAB No. 06-09-10698-97, and remanded for further proceedings; the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC and this Court denied certiorari in G.R. No. 151801 (November 12, 2002), which remanded RAB No. 06-09-10698-97 for further fact-finding on whether Fela Contractor had stepped into the shoes of the previous contractor.
Separately, the Labor Arbiter issued a December 21, 1998 Decision in RAB No. 06-09-10699-97 holding that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and private respondent because petitioners’ real employer was Fela Contractor; that Decision became final and executory. After the finality of RAB No. 06-09-10699-97, private respondent again moved to dismiss RAB No. 06-09-10698-97 (this time grounding its motion on the finality of the RAB No. 06-09-10699-97 judgment). The Labor Arbiter denied that motion in an Order dated August 12, 2003.
Private respondent filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the August 12, 2003 Labor Arbiter Order. The CA (Second and Nineteenth Divisions) first issued a November 14, 2003 Resolution granting a preliminary mandatory injunction, and on June 22, 2004 rendered a Decision annulling the Labor Arbiter’s August 12, 2003 Order and dismissing RAB No. 06-09-10698-97; the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a January 14, 2005 Resolution. Petitioners brought the present special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA’s November 14, 2003 Resolution, the June 22, 2004 Decision, and the January 14, 2005 Resolution.
Petitioners ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain private respondent’s petition for certiorari assailing the Labor Arbiter’s denial of the motion to dismiss?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly annul the Labor Arbiter’s August 12, 2003 Order and dismiss RAB No. 06-09-10698-97 on the ground of res judicata / conclusiveness of judgment?
- Was private respondent guilty of forum shopping in prosecuting the successive motions to dis...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)