Case Summary (G.R. No. 150334)
The PALEA Election and the Administrative Petitions
PALEA-International Transport Workers’ Federation-Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (ITF-TUCP) was described as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of all regular and rank-and-file employees of Philippine Airlines (PAL). After the expiration of the term of its incumbent officers, a general election of PALEA officers was held on February 17, 21, 23 and 24, 2000. After the ballots were cast, the PALEA Commission on Election (Comelec) proceeded to count and canvass the votes, except for about 500 ballots that had been segregated under a circular stating that segregated ballots apply only to voters in precincts other than their own and that they would be double checked against official voters lists to avoid double balloting. Three ballot boxes containing ballots from the PALEA precinct and the Cubao and Padre Faura precincts were likewise questioned.
While the canvass was ongoing, Nida Villagracia, a candidate for union president, filed a petition on March 7, 2000 with the DOLE-NCR to assume jurisdiction and to complete the canvassing of votes, with prayer for a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the PALEA Comelec. This case was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-0003-004-IRD. On March 16, 2000, during the pendency of Villagracia’s petition, the PALEA Comelec declared the segregated ballots and the ballots in three unopened ballot boxes invalid, and proclaimed the officers it named as duly elected. On March 30, 2000, Villagracia’s petition was dismissed as premature and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Article XIX, Section VI of the PALEA Constitution and By-laws.
On that same date, Edgardo C. Oredina, another candidate for union president, together with his group, filed a petition to declare a failure of election, also seeking a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction. This was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-0003-010-IRD.
DOLE-NCR, BLR, and the Court of Appeals Rulings
The DOLE-NCR rendered a decision on June 15, 2000, granting Oredina’s petition. The decision nullified the election results and the proclamation of the winners by the PALEA Comelec, and ordered the PALEA Comelec to conduct a new election under direct supervision of the DOLE. Jose Penas III and the present petitioners—having been previously declared winning candidates—appealed to the BLR. On July 28, 2000, the BLR, through a Resolution, denied the appeal for lack of merit. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied in a Resolution dated August 24, 2000. Only Penas then challenged the BLR Resolution by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. He argued that neither the DOLE-NCR nor the BLR had jurisdiction because Oredina’s action was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PALEA Constitution and By-laws.
On March 28, 2001, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision affirming the BLR. A motion for reconsideration was denied on October 12, 2001. After that, Penas did not proceed further within the reglementary period, and he likewise left petitioners to their own course.
Issues Raised and the Petitioners’ Position
Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari with this Court on November 29, 2001, adopting the same arguments earlier raised by Penas before the Court of Appeals. Their submissions centered on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the DOLE-NCR and BLR, grounded on the claimed prematurity of Oredina’s petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PALEA Constitution and By-laws.
In response, Oredina asserted that petitioners were not proper parties to appeal the Court of Appeals decision because they were not parties to the CA proceedings. He further argued that since Penas failed to timely elevate the CA decision to this Court, the CA decision had already become final and executory.
The Central Question: Proper Party and Consequences of Non-Participation
The Court framed the sole issue as whether petitioners, who were not parties to the CA certiorari proceedings, but were co-respondents of Penas in the earlier administrative matters, were proper parties to file the present petition for review on certiorari.
The Court held that petitioners were not proper parties. It applied the “basic rule” that when a party to an original action fails to question an adverse judgment by not filing the proper remedy within the period prescribed by law, the party loses the right to do so and the judgment becomes final and binding as to that party. The Court emphasized that, although petitioners had been among the respondents in the cases decided by the DOLE-NCR and later affirmed by the BLR, petitioners did not take further action after the BLR denied their motion for reconsideration.
The Court noted that when Penas challenged the BLR Resolutions by filing a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals, petitioners did not join him. This omission was treated as a serious procedural lapse that tolled the finality of the BLR Resolutions as against petitioners. The Court reasoned that there was no cogent basis to allow petitioners to seek reversal of a CA decision when they were never parties to the CA case from which that decision issued.
Finality, Continuation of Suit, and No Extraordinary Grounds to Relax Rules
The Court relied on Siliman University v. Fontelo-Paalan and Itogon-Suyoc Mines Inc. v. NLRC, explaining that a party cannot impugn the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him. It also stressed that a Rule 45 petition is an appeal and only a continuation of an original suit. In the case at bar, the Court viewed the “original suit” as the certiorari petition that Penas filed before the Court of Appeals. Since petitioners were not parties to that original suit, they lacked personality to continue it through an appeal.
Although the Court recognized that procedural rules may be relaxed to serve substantial justice, it stated that relaxation is available only under exceptional grounds or extraordinary circumstances. The Court found no such exceptional ground. It also underscored the absence of any justifiable reason for petitioners’ failure to timely challenge the adverse BLR Resolutions within the reglementary period or to join Penas in the CA petition.
Further, the Court refused to condone what it described as an “iniiuitous” practice of allowing a judgment to become final and executory through a party’s own or counsel’s inadvertence, and then attackin
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 150334)
- The case arose from a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Dolly A. Ocampo, Mario S. Verona, Isagani O. Dawal, Jose Arcadio R. Relova, Aristophane Palencia, and Armando Hernandez to set aside the Court of Appeals (former Second Division) March 28, 2001 Decision and October 12, 2001 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 60886.
- The petition sought to undo the Court of Appeals rulings that affirmed an order requiring a new election of officers of PALEA and nullifying the results of the union election held in February 2000.
- The controversy involved an intra-union election under the collective bargaining relationship of PALEA with Philippine Airlines (PAL), and the administrative review of alleged election irregularities through DOLE-NCR and BLR.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The petitioners were candidates and union officers previously proclaimed by the PALEA Commission on Election (Comelec) as having won the February 17 to 24, 2000 election.
- The respondents included the Court of Appeals (former Second Division), the CA justices Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio and Maximo B. Lim, Edgardo C. Oredina, and Philippine Airlines, Inc.
- The administrative cases originated before DOLE-NCR and were then appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the BLR action through a petition for certiorari filed by Jose Penas III only.
- After the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration, Penas did nothing further, and the petitioners later filed a Rule 45 petition before this Court on November 29, 2001.
Key Factual Allegations
- PALEA-ITF-TUCP was described as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of all regular and rank-and-file employees of PAL.
- A general election of PALEA officers was held on February 17, 21, 23, and 24, 2000, to replace the incumbent set whose term expired.
- The PALEA Comelec counted and canvassed the ballots but segregated approximately 500 ballots pursuant to a circular stating that segregated ballots apply only to voters casting ballots in a precinct other than their own and would be double checked against official voters lists assigned to their respective areas to avoid double balloting.
- Three ballot boxes containing ballots from the PALEA precinct and the precincts from Cubao and Padre Faura were likewise questioned.
- Nida Villagracia, a candidate for union president, filed a petition with DOLE-NCR on March 7, 2000 to assume jurisdiction, complete the canvassing, and obtain a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the PALEA Comelec.
- While Villagracia’s petition was pending, the PALEA Comelec declared the segregated ballots and ballots from three unopened ballot boxes invalid and proclaimed specified winning candidates, including Jose T. Penas III as president and the petitioners as other officers and directors.
- On March 30, 2000, Villagracia’s petition was dismissed due to prematurity and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Article XIX, Section VI of the PALEA Constitution and By-laws.
- On the same March 30, 2000, Edgardo Oredina, another candidate for union president, filed a separate petition to declare a failure of election with urgent prayer for TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction, later resulting in a DOLE-NCR decision nullifying the election results and ordering a new election under DOLE supervision.
Administrative and Appellate Proceedings
- DOLE-NCR (Director Maximo B. Lim) ruled on June 15, 2000, granting Oredina’s petition, nullifying the PALEA election results and the Comelec proclamation of winners, and ordering a new election under direct supervision of DOLE.
- BLR denied the appeal of Jose Penas III and the other petitioners through a July 28, 2000 Resolution for lack of merit.
- Separate motions for reconsideration were filed, but BLR denied the motions in a Resolution dated August 24, 2000.
- Only Penas challenged the BLR Resolution by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, asserting, as relevant, that DOLE-NCR and BLR had no jurisdiction and that Oredina’s action was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PALEA Constitution and By-laws.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the BLR action on March 28, 2001, and it later denied reconsideration