A.M. No. CA-13-51-J - IN RE: Fabiana

The administrative matter arose from the claim for death benefits filed by the heirs of the late Marlon Fabiana against Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (manning agent) and its principal, Air Sea Holiday GmbH-Stable Organizations Italia.
Complainant Merlita B. Fabiana, the surviving spouse of Marlon Fabiana, accused the Court of Appeals (CA) Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (Presiding Justice), Isaias P. Dicdican, and Stephen C. Cruz (members of the CA First Division) of openly defying the Supreme Court resolution dated January 13, 2010, in G.R. No. 189726. The resolution had allegedly affixed finality to her claims for death benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees against the Maritime Company.

On December 19, 2007, the Labor Arbiter granted comprehensive monetary awards to the heirs, including:

US $82,500.00 in death benefits to complainant Merlita B. Fabiana
US $16,500.00 to complainant Jomari Paul B. Fabiana
Salary differentials from July 17, 2006 to April 23, 2007, sick benefits, guaranteed overtime pay, actual damages, moral damages (P100,000), exemplary damages (P1,000,000), and 10% attorney’s fees.

On December 10, 2008, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a decision modifying and affirming the Labor Arbiter’s ruling by reducing moral and exemplary damages to P50,000 each while affirming other awards.

C.A.-G.R. SP No. 109382 by the heirs of Fabiana contested NLRC’s jurisdiction and sought reinstatement of damages (first petition).
C.A.-G.R. SP No. 109699 by Magsaysay Maritime Corporation challenged monetary awards granted to the heirs (second petition).

The heirs moved for consolidation, which was not acted upon by the CA.
On September 29, 2009, the CA First Division promulgated a decision on the first petition partly granting it by affirming but modifying the award with interest imposition.
Magsaysay Maritime filed a motion for clarification on October 25, 2009; the CA issued a clarification on November 26, 2009.
The heirs’ motion for reconsideration was denied; they petitioned the Supreme Court for review on certiorari, which was denied on January 13, 2010 for lack of reversible error.
Meanwhile, the heirs moved to dismiss the second petition for being moot but the CA First Division denied the motion on June 4, 2010, holding that the issues were not moot since the second petition concerned other monetary awards.
The second petition was resolved by the CA Sixth Division on September 16, 2011, dismissing it due to absence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.

Complainant accused the CA First Division Justices of willful disobedience of the Supreme Court resolution of January 13, 2010, for continuing to entertain the second petition.
The Court of Appeals Justices explained their actions through the June 4, 2010 resolution asserting the issues before them remained valid and not moot.

Whether the CA Justices committed willful disobedience or grave misconduct by allegedly defying the Supreme Court’s January 13, 2010 resolution.
Whether the CA First Division erred in denying the motion to dismiss the second petition as moot when the Supreme Court had already denied the petition on the first petition.
Whether the CA committed reversible error and should have consolidated the two petitions involving the same parties, facts, and issues.