Case Digest (G.R. No. 168406)
Facts:
Club Filipino, Inc. and Atty. Roberto F. De Leon v. Benjamin Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 168406, January 14, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., resolves a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Club Filipino, Inc. after this Court had denied its Petition for Review and motion for reconsideration.
The dispute arose between Club Filipino, Inc. (the employer) and Club Filipino Employees Association (CLUFEA) (the union). The parties’ last collective bargaining agreement expired on May 31, 2000. During the 60‑day freedom period CLUFEA sought bargaining; the club delayed negotiations, alleging lack of quorum and illness of its negotiating chair. CLUFEA filed proposals in June 2000, requested preventive mediation before the NCMB, and the panels met April 5, 2001 and declared a bargaining deadlock. CLUFEA filed a Notice of Strike April 6, 2001; the employer submitted counterproposals thereafter (April 22 and May 11). A strike vote under DOLE supervision occurred May 4, 2001, and CLUFEA struck on May 26, 2001.
On May 31, 2001 the club filed with the NLRC a petition declaring CLUFEA’s strike illegal, alleging procedural defects in the Notice of Strike and illegal acts by strikers. Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion, in a decision dated November 28, 2001, found CLUFEA’s Notice deficient under then Rule XXII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, declared the strike illegal, and ordered that the union officers who participated be terminated; because the club had implemented a retrenchment program the dismissed officers were to receive separation pay comparable to retrenched employees.
CLUFEA appealed to the NLRC on December 20, 2001, but the NLRC, in its September 30, 2002 decision, denied the appeal for lack of merit and questioned the appellants’ standing: it found Bautista had resigned and received separation benefits, other signatories were no longer officers, and the appeal was filed without the union’s authority. Motions for reconsideration were denied July 15, 2003.
Several union officers (Bautista, Sualog, Calida, Arinto, de Guzman and Fegalquin) filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 22, 2003; Presentacion later joined while Caluag did not. The CA considered standing and merits: it held persons dismissed can challenge dismissal, found Arinto, de Guzman and Fegalquin had been denied full hearing, and on the merits concluded the Labor Arbiter gravely abused his discretion. The CA interpreted Rule XXII, Section 4 as not absolute — proposals and counterproposals must be attached “as far as practicable” and CLUFEA could not attach employer counterproposals submitted after the Notice; the CA also held dismissal of all union officers required proof of their knowing participation in an illegal strike. The CA set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision as to Sualog, Calida, Arinto and de Guzman and awarded them backwages, benefits and separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), but dismissed the petition insofar as Bautista, Fegalquin and Presentacion.
Club Filipino, Inc. sought review in this Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari (filed June 23, 2005). In 2009 (610 Phil. 141) the Court, First Division (per J. Corona), affirmed the CA: it held CLUFEA could not attach counterproposals that did not yet exist, Rule XXII, Section 4 is not absolute, and the Labor Arbiter had no basis to order wholesale dismissal absent proof of knowing participation. This Court denied the club’s motion for reconsideration (July 13, 2009) and its subsequent motion (Sept. 9, 2009); an Entry of Judgment was issued October 26, 2010 declaring the case final and executory as of October 26, 2009 and directing remand.
After Entry of Judgment the club filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (leave having been granted Jan. 11, 2010) asserting final judgment should be stayed because the NLRC had begun execution of the CA judgment and that respondents had already received separation pay under a separate retrenchment decision, resulting in double compensation. The club relied on an NLRC/Labor Arbiter decision in a separate illegal dismissal suit which had found the club’s retrenchment valid (Labor Arbiter Natividad M. Roma, Oct. 2, 2002; NLRC affirmed Feb. 23, 2004, final Mar. 27, 2004) and ordered separation pay to respondents.
This Court resolved two questions: (1) whether the Supplemental Motion prev...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the filing of Club Filipino, Inc.’s Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration prevent this Court’s July 13, 2009 Resolution from becoming final and executory?
- Was the NLRC’s decision in the illegal dismissal (retrenchment) case res judicata as to the illegal strike case, thereby barring execution of the Co...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)