G.R. No. 209116 - Monterona vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.

Petitioners Danny Boy C. Monterona, Joselito S. Alvarez, Ignacio S. Samson, Joey P. Ocampo, Role R. Demetrio, and Elpidio P. Metre, Jr., along with co-employees, were previously employed by Genesis Manpower and General Services, Inc. (Genesis), a job contractor.
Respondents are Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (Coca-Cola) and Giovanni Acorda, an officer of Coca-Cola.
Petitioners’ employment was allegedly terminated in August 2003.

Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayers for reinstatement, back wages, damages, and attorney’s fees against respondents before the Labor Arbiter (LA).
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, ruling that petitioners were employed by Genesis, not Coca-Cola, as Genesis exercised control over their work.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed LA’s dismissal.
On petitioners’ petition to the Court of Appeals (CA), CA reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter’s rulings, finding an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondents.
However, CA ruled several petitioners (Monterona, Alvarez, Samson, Ocampo, Metre) could not benefit from the decision as they were not impleaded; Demetrio was dropped for failure to sign verification and certification against forum shopping.
Respondents petitioned the Supreme Court, but the petition was dismissed, and the CA Decision became final and executory on July 28, 2008.

Petitioners (this time only Monterona, Alvarez, Samson, Ocampo, Demetrio, and Metre) filed another complaint for illegal dismissal and for various monetary claims.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint with prejudice on grounds of prescription (delayed filing beyond the allowed period) and res judicata (case barred by prior judgment).
The NLRC affirmed the dismissal, but only on the ground of res judicata, holding that the second case involved the same cause of action and parties as the first.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before NLRC was denied.
On appeal, the CA dismissed the petition on the ground of laches and estoppel, noting petitioners’ inaction when excluded or dropped in the prior litigation and failure to seek timely relief.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before CA was denied.

Petitioners argue the CA erred in dismissing their petition on the ground of laches and estoppel; they contend res judicata is inapplicable because the first case decision did not finally adjudicate their claims on the merits.
Respondents contend petitioners failed to diligently pursue their claims and voluntarily allowed the prior rulings to become final through inaction.

Whether the dismissal of petitioners’ second illegal dismissal complaint was proper under the doctrine of res judicata.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the grounds of laches and estoppel.
Whether the first illegal dismissal case’s ruling may be considered a judgment on the merits, thereby barring the second case.