G.R. No. 207684 - Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Cual

This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Decision dated November 9, 2012, of the Court of Appeals in CAA-G.R. SP No. 123587 and its June 11, 2013 Resolution denying reconsideration.
The petition originated from a refiled case before the labor arbiter where issues regarding illegal dismissal were raised.
The respondents, comprising drivers, conductors, and maintenance personnel, were employed by petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. before their inclusion in a retrenchment program.
Their exclusion from the original complaint was due to the failure to sign the verification page and the omission of their names in the board resolution authorizing the complaint.

The respondents, all members of the Philtranco Workers Union Association of Genuine Labor Organization (PWU-AGLO), were retrenched during the years 2006 to 2007 based on allegations of business losses by Philtranco.
PWU-AGLO filed a Notice of Strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on the ground that Philtranco engaged in unfair labor practices, which was subsequently docketed as NCMB-NCR Case No. NS-02-028-07, later referred to the Office of the Secretary of DOLE as Case No. OS-VA-2007-008.
Acting DOLE Secretary Danilo P. Cruz issued a Decision on June 13, 2007, ordering:

Reinstatement of seventeen “union officers” with due backwages (subject to deductions if separation pay had been received).
Maintenance of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) terms concerning salaries, wages, and employee benefits until a new agreement was reached.
Remittance of withheld union dues to PWU-AGLO.

In response, the respondents filed a labor complaint for illegal dismissal on October 16, 2007, praying for reinstatement, backwages, and wage differentials (docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-10-11607-07).

On March 25, 2008, Labor Arbiter Antonio Macam ruled that union president Jose Jessie Olivar had been illegally dismissed and was entitled to remedies, while dismissing the other respondents for failure to complete necessary verification formalities.
The respondents appealed their exclusion before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 110410, both of which were unsuccessful, leaving them excluded from the award.
A subsequent, refiled case (second NLRC case, NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-08130-10) saw Philtranco submit its audited financial statements for 2006 and 2007.
On April 15, 2011, Labor Arbiter Quintin Cueto III ruled in favor of the respondents for illegal dismissal based on the “law of the case” doctrine referencing the binding nature of the first NLRC decision.
The NLRC reversed LA Cueto’s decision on September 15, 2011, giving weight to the belated financial statements and rejecting the application of the law of the case in the refiled complaint.
Further petitions and motions for reconsideration were denied, and the CA eventually reinstated LA Cueto’s decision in favor of the respondents in spite of the NLRC reversal.

The invalidity of the retrenchment program and the subsequent finding of illegal dismissal.
The improper application of the “law of the case” doctrine in the second NLRC complaint.
The joint and several liability sought against individual petitioners (corporate officers) Jose Pepito Alvarez, Arsenio Yap, and Centurion Solano regarding payment of backwages and other awards.

The factual determination about Philtranco’s financial status at the time of retrenchment was central to assessing whether the retrenchment was executed in good faith.
The disputed submission of audited financial statements—belatedly presented in the second case—formed a significant part of the factual record, with the CA finding that such submission could not retroactively constitute a supervening event.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the “law of the case” doctrine to the respondents’ refiled labor complaint despite the distinct procedural history between the first and second NLRC cases.
Whether the prior finding on the illegality of Philtranco’s retrenchment, based on insufficient evidence of business losses, could be invoked as res judicata or issue preclusion in the second NLRC case.
Whether the belated submission of audited financial statements by Philtranco in the refiled case constitutes a supervening event that would mitigate its earlier retrenchment actions.
Whether the individual petitioners (corporate officers of Philtranco) should be held jointly and severally liable with the corporation for the illegal dismissal of the respondents.