Case Summary (G.R. No. 180147)
Applicable Law
The case is governed by provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Decision Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a Motion for Reconsideration concerning a previous decision from June 4, 2014, which directed the petitioners to post a bond of P725 Million, and declared the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Resolution from December 19, 2006, as premature.
Grounds for Reconsideration
The petitioners contended that the Court had failed to acknowledge several significant legal violations, including:
- Jurisdictional issues concerning due process rights due to non-inclusion and non-service of summons to SLPI, SLC, and Cruz.
- Lack of employer-employee relationships.
- Legal impediments to the NLRC's authority to vacate the Labor Arbiter's decision without a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
- Prescriptive periods for filing money claims as stated under Article 291 of the Labor Code and the doctrine of res judicata due to prior final decisions on similar issues.
Factual Background
In the initial ruling, a Labor Arbiter found that the dismissals were illegal and awarded substantial monetary compensation of over P3.4 billion. The Corporations appealed, and the NLRC eventually reduced the amount of the required appeal bond, despite the complexities of the case and multiple legal issues being raised throughout the process.
Issues on Appeal and Decisional Elements
The Court rejected the petitioners' claims for reconsideration, emphasizing the validity of the bond requirement and the requirements necessary for a proper appeal under the NLRC's guidelines. The Court found the petitioners' arguments lacking merit, stressing that any failure to properly post bonds or comply with procedural requirements would not invalidate the binding nature of the prior judgments made by labor arbiters.
Confession of Judgment
The petitioners attempted to introduce a Confession of Judgment with a substantially lower monetary offer to settle claims, which was found to represent only a small fraction of the original award. The Court criticized this move as potentially undermining the legal rights of the respondents since it failed to reflect an equitable settlement.
Conclus
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 180147)
Case Overview
- The case involves multiple petitions (G.R. Nos. 180147, 180148, 180149, 180150, 180319, and 180685) filed by various corporations and individuals against Emilinda D. Macatlang and others.
- The central issue revolves around a motion for reconsideration pertaining to a decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) regarding a labor dispute involving former employees of Aris Philippines, Inc.
- The Supreme Court's resolution addresses a motion for leave to file and admit a statement and confession of judgment by Sara Lee Corporation and other petitioners, along with other motions from the parties involved.
Background of the Case
- Aris Philippines, Inc. ceased operations on October 9, 1995, affecting 5,984 employees who subsequently filed a case for illegal dismissal against the company.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled on October 30, 2004, that the dismissal was illegal and awarded the employees a total of P3,453,664,710.86, which included separation pay, back wages, damages, and attorney's fees.
- The corporations involved (Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, and Cesar C. Cruz) appealed the decision but faced issues with the appeal bond amount set by the NLRC.
Key Issues Raised in the Motion for Reconsideration
- The petitioners argue that the Supreme Court