View full case

CLUB FILIPINO v. BENJAMIN BAUTISTA

FACTS:

Club Filipino Employees Association (CLUFEA) is a union representing the employees of Club Filipino, Inc. They had previously entered into collective bargaining agreements, with the last one expiring on May 31, 2000. CLUFEA made demands for negotiation but Club Filipino, Inc. stated its inability to negotiate due to a lack of quorum in the Board of Directors. CLUFEA submitted proposals for negotiation, but Club Filipino, Inc. failed to negotiate citing the illness of the chairperson.

CLUFEA filed a request for preventive mediation, and the parties eventually met but reached a deadlock. CLUFEA then filed a notice of strike, and Club Filipino, Inc. submitted a counterproposal. A strike vote was conducted, with the majority of CLUFEA's members voting to strike. CLUFEA went on strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock.

Club Filipino, Inc. filed a petition to declare the strike illegal, alleging non-compliance with legal requirements and illegal acts by CLUFEA's members during the strike. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and terminated all officers of CLUFEA. CLUFEA appealed but the NLRC ruled that the appeal was filed by individuals who had no legal standing as officers of CLUFEA, as they had either resigned or were no longer officers at the time of filing the appeal.

The case involves a labor dispute between Club Filipino, Inc. and the Club Filipino Union of Employees Association (CLUFEA). The NLRC denied CLUFEA's appeal, resulting in the termination of some of its officers and employees. CLUFEA's former legal counsel filed an unauthorized appeal to the NLRC. CLUFEA and its officers filed motions for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied these motions.

Bautista, Sualog, Calida, Arinto, de Guzman, and Fegalquin filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the NLRC's decision. The Court of Appeals ruled that the officers had the right to appeal the loss of their employment and that Arinto, de Guzman, and Fegalquin were not granted due process. The Court of Appeals also found that the Labor Arbiter's decision declaring CLUFEA's strike illegal was flawed. The court granted the petition with respect to some of the officers, ordering payment of backwages and benefits. The petition was dismissed with respect to others.

Club Filipino, Inc. filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which agreed with the Court of Appeals' decision. CFI argued that the Entry of Judgment was premature as the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration was still pending. The Supreme Court noted CFI's argument but did not resolve it. CFI then filed a motion to resolve the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, stating that the respondents filed a Motion for Execution despite its pendency.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Club Filipino, Inc.'s filing of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration prevented the court's Resolution dated July 13, 2009 from becoming final and executory.

  2. Whether the NLRC's Decision on the illegal dismissal case was res judicata on the illegal strike case.

  3. Whether a second motion for reconsideration can be entertained by the Court en banc in the higher interest of justice.

  4. Whether the grant of leave to file a second motion for reconsideration tolls the 15-day period for a decision or resolution to become final and executory.

  5. Whether res judicata applies in this case.

  6. Whether the actions filed have the same subject matter.

  7. Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners.

  8. Whether the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement.

  9. Whether the petitioners are entitled to backwages and benefits.

  10. Whether any benefit received by the petitioners in the illegal dismissal case can be deducted from the benefits receivable under the Court of Appeals' Decision.

RULING:

  1. The filing of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration did not prevent the court's Resolution dated July 13, 2009 from becoming final and executory.

    • The court held that the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration should be denied with finality. As a general rule, the filing of second Motions for Reconsideration is prohibited. Therefore, the filing of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration did not prevent the court's Resolution dated July 13, 2009 from becoming final and executory.

  3. A second motion for reconsideration can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. It can be entertained if it presents "extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only upon express leave first obtained." The rationale for this rule is to prevent the "piece-meal" impugnation of a judgment by successive motions for reconsideration and to ensure prompt disposition of cases.

  4. The grant of leave to file a second motion for reconsideration does not toll the 15-day period for a decision or resolution to become final and executory. The decision or resolution is deemed final and executory after the lapse of 15 days from the parties' receipt of a copy thereof. The grant of leave only means that the Entry of Judgment may be lifted should the second motion for reconsideration be granted.

  5. Res judicata does not apply in this case because although the first three elements of res judicata are present, the cause of action for declaration of illegal strike and the cause of action for illegal dismissal are different.

  6. The actions have the same subject matter as they both involve the dismissal of the respondents. However, the Court of Appeals ordered that those who already retired and received their benefits may no longer claim full backwages, benefits, and separation pay under the decision in the illegal strike case.

  7. The Supreme Court declared the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC null and void with respect to the petitioners as they were found to be attended by grave abuse of discretion.

  8. The Supreme Court refused to order the reinstatement of the petitioners due to their strained relationship with the employer resulting from the strike and the restructuring of the workforce.

  9. The Supreme Court ordered the payment of the petitioners' full backwages and benefits from the time of their dismissal until the finality of the Supreme Court's decision. Separation pay was also granted, computed at one month salary per year of service.

  10. Any amount received by the petitioners from the employer as a result of the decisions below can be deducted from the payments found to be due to the petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The filing of second Motions for Reconsideration is generally prohibited. (Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court)

  • The court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least the majority of its actual membership. (Rule 15, Section 3 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court)

  • A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained by the Court en banc in the higher interest of justice upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership.

  • The grant of leave to file a second motion for reconsideration does not toll the 15-day period for a decision or resolution to become final and executory.

  • The purpose of the rule on second motions for reconsideration is to ensure prompt disposition of cases and prevent the "piece-meal" impugnation of a judgment.

  • The elements of a cause of action are: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff, (b) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect or not to violate such right, and (c) an act or omission on the part of the defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.

  • Res judicata requires the following elements: (a) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final, (b) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, (c) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits, and (d) there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second action.

  • A decision by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC can be declared null and void if it is attended by grave abuse of discretion.

  • Reinstatement is not automatically granted in cases of illegal dismissal, especially if a strained relationship exists between the employee and employer.

  • In cases of illegal dismissal, the employee is entitled to backwages and benefits from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision.

  • Any amount received by the employee as a result of previous decisions can be deducted from the payments due to the employee.