FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220032. November 5, 2018.]
ARLENE FORMALES [CATELO], * petitioner, vs.CENTROLINK SERVICE CORPORATION AND MA. PARIZIA A. REYES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 5, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220032 (Arlene Formales [Catelo] vs. Centrolink Service Corporation and Ma. Parizia A. Reyes)
We resolve this petition 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 2 dated March 24, 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated August 13, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 137312.
The subject of this appeal originated from the illegal dismissal case docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 02-02850-08, filed by petitioner Arlene Formales Catelo (Catelo) with the Labor Arbiter (LA) against respondents Centrolink Service Corporation (Centrolink) and Ma. Parizia A. Reyes (Reyes), collectively referred to as respondents.
On January 15, 2009, the LA rendered a Decision, 4 holding respondents liable for illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay Catelo her backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Aggrieved, respondents appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
In its Decision 5 dated June 25, 2010, the NLRC affirmed the LA's ruling that Catelo was illegally dismissed; but it absolved Reyes from her solidary liability with Centrolink to pay Catelo. The NLRC likewise held that the computation for the payment of Catelo's backwages is limited only up to the date of the LA's decision.
Dissatisfied, both Catelo and Centrolink, filed their respective petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, as follows: DaIAcC
(1) In CA-G.R. SP No. 120626 (the "First CA Petition"), Centrolink assailed the NLRC's finding of illegal dismissal and its attendant consequences, except for Reyes' exemption from personal liability;
(2) In CA-G.R. SP No. 120628 (the "Second CA Petition"), Catelo assailed the NLRC's ruling insofar as it exonerated Reyes from its solidary liability with Centrolink for the monetary award; and,
(3) In CA-G.R. SP 122018 (the "Third CA Petition"), Catelo challenged the computation of the "additional" backwages and separation pay due her.
Through several pleadings, 6 Catelo sought the consolidation of the three aforementioned petitions in one proceeding, recognizing that: (1) the three pending petitions involve the same parties, factual circumstances and issues; and, (2) the First CA Petition unequivocally sought a reversal or dismissal of the NLRC decision. Although respondents posed no objection to the consolidation, the CA did not consolidate the three CA petitions.
On December 16, 2011, the CA issued a Resolution 7 (the "First CA Judgment") dismissing the First CA Petition, and thus, affirmed the pronouncement of the NLRC. Respondents' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in the CA's Resolution 8 dated February 10, 2012. Thereafter, the First CA Judgment became final and executory 9 on March 8, 2012.
On April 11, 2012, Catelo forthwith filed before the LA a Motion for Execution 10 on the premise that the NLRC decision and the First CA Judgment which upheld the NLRC's decision, had both become final and executory and, thus, binding upon the parties. She claimed that she was entitled to payment of monetary damages in accordance with the said rulings.
On May 24, 2012, the CA resolved the Second CA Petition and promulgated a Decision 11 (the "Second CA Judgment"), holding that Reyes was solidarily liable with Centrolink, without prejudice to the outcome of the First CA Judgment. The ruling became final and executory on October 9, 2013. 12
On April 4, 2013, the CA resolved the Third CA Petition and promulgated its Decision 13 (Third CA Judgment), ruling as follows: Catelo is entitled to full backwages from the date of her dismissal and is also entitled to a separation pay from the date of hiring. The judgment became final and executory on October 4, 2013. 14 TAacHE
Meanwhile, in an Order 15 dated September 9, 2013, the LA granted Catelo's Motion for Execution dated April 15, 2012, wherein she agreed to be paid the amount of P946,245.40 representing her monetary award. However, when respondents tendered her a check in the said amount during their October 3, 2013 pre-execution conference, Catelo made a sudden turnaround and refused to receive the same. 16 Instead, she filed a Manifestation/Motion 17 with the LA on September 12, 2013, praying for additional backwages and separation pay on the bases of the Second and Third CA judgments.
Respondents, on December 3, 2013, timely opposed Catelo's motion stating among others, that the execution must be based on the First CA Judgment which affirmed the NLRC's decision and which had already become final and executory on March 8, 2012.
On April 25, 2014, the LA issued an Order, 18 granting Catelo's motion for additional backwages and separation pay; and declaring that, for execution purposes, Reyes is not solidarily liable with Centrolink.
Both parties filed their respective Petitions for Extraordinary Remedy with the NLRC.
On July 15, 2014, the NLRC issued an Order 19 setting aside the LA's ruling that Reyes is not solidarily liable with Centrolink and declaring that the LA did not err in directing the computation of Catelo's additional backwages. Respondents' subsequent motion for reconsideration of the said order was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution 20 dated September 8, 2014.
On September 22, 2014, respondents filed a petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 137312 (Fourth CA Petition) with the CA, raising the issue of, which among the three (3) final and executory CA judgments, should be binding upon the NLRC and the parties.
On March 24, 2015, the CA rendered its Decision (Fourth CA Judgment), granting the Fourth CA Petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order dated July 15, 2014 and Resolution dated September 8, 2014 of the NLRC are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is entered REINSTATING the NLRC Decision dated June 25, 2010 and the Resolution dated April 29, 2011 in NLRC LAC No. 05-002356-09, as affirmed by this Court in CA G.R. SP No. 120626 in a decision which attained finality on March 8, 2012.
SO ORDERED. 21 HDICSa
Inevitably, Catelo sought a reversal of the Fourth CA Judgment arguing that the subject matters and causes of action in the three CA judgments were distinct from each other. She asserted that the Second and Third CA judgments constituted res judicata upon the Fourth CA Judgment. The CA, however, denied the motion in its Resolution dated August 13, 2015. Hence, this petition.
Essentially, the issue for resolution is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the First CA Judgment barred the Second and Third CA judgments under the doctrine of immutability of judgments and the principle of res judicata.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
The main role of the courts of justice is to assist in the enforcement of the law and in the maintenance of peace and order by putting an end to justiciable controversies with finality. 22 Nothing better serves this role than the long established doctrine of immutability of judgments, which we have explained in the case of Apo Fruits Corporation, et al. v. Court of Appeals, 23 as follows:
It is never a small matter to maintain that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, even at the risk of occasional errors. A judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The reason for the rule is that if, on the application of one party, the court could change its judgment to the prejudice of the other, it could thereafter, on application of the latter, again change the judgment and continue this practice indefinitely. The equity of a particular case must yield to the overmastering need of certainty and unalterability of judicial pronouncements. 24 [Citations Omitted]
Guided by the doctrine of immutability, the Court agrees with the CA in sustaining the finality of the First CA Judgment. Recall that in the First CA Judgment, the CA denied respondents' petition for certiorari; and thus, affirmed the NLRC's Decision dated June 25, 2010, and its Resolution dated April 29, 2011. In effect, the CA rendered conclusive the following pronouncements touched upon by the NLRC, to wit: (a) Catelo was illegally dismissed; (b) Reyes was exempted from solidary liability with Centrolink for the monetary awards due to Catelo; and (c) Catelo's backwages should be limited only up to the date of the LA's January 15, 2009 Decision in NLRC NCR Case No. 02-002850-08.
Considering that Catelo did not bother to interpose an appeal, the First CA Judgment became final and executory on March 8, 2012. Catelo even recognized that the First CA Judgment which upheld the NLRC decision had become final and executory. This was made manifest when she filed the Motion for Execution dated April 15, 2012. The subject matter of the said motion was none other than the First CA Judgment. IDaEHC
Contrary to Catelo's claims, the First CA Judgment already arrived at a complete determination of the following: (a) Catelo's status as an illegally dismissed employee; (b) Reyes' exclusion from liability; and (c) the limitation on the backwages awarded to Catelo. As correctly pointed out by the CA:
Ultimately, after the decision of this Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 120626 bec[a]me final and executory, such finality is conclusive between petitioners and private respondent [Catelo], with respect to the matters directly adjudged therein or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. The "matter directly adjudged" is the illegality of private respondent [Catelo's] dismissal, and the "other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto" is the solidary liability of petitioner [Reyes] and the computation of period of private respondent [Catelo's] backwages. 25
Clearly, the First CA Judgment could no longer be modified in any respect, either by the Second or the Third CA Judgments which were rendered after the First CA Judgment has attained finality. To rule otherwise, would run counter to the doctrine of immutability of judgments, whose two-fold purpose are to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. 26
Aside from this, the First CA Judgment undoubtedly constituted res judicata with respect to the later cases in the Second and Third CA judgments. Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. 27 Based on this principle, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action. 28 For res judicata to serve as an absolute bar to a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; and (4) there must be between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action. 29
All the elements of res judicata are present in the instant case.
First, the First CA Judgment had become final and executory on March 8, 2012 — long before the rendition of the Second and Third CA Judgments.
Second, the First CA Judgment was an adjudication on the merits since it passed upon not only the issue of illegal dismissal, but likewise the extent and nature of the liability of Centrolink and Reyes, including the amount of monetary awards to which Catelo was entitled to.
Third, the CA has jurisdiction to render the First CA Judgment, since a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning jurisdictional errors of the NLRC, are cognizable under the law by the CA. DTCSHA
Fourth, the three CA Petitions involved the same parties, i.e., respondents as employer and Catelo as its employee. It likewise involved the same subject matter and causes of action since they all stemmed from the illegal dismissal case, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 02-02850-08, pertaining to Catelo's illegal dismissal; and to the monetary awards which were made in her favor. The records also show that in her pleadings with the CA, Catelo admitted that the three CA Petitions involved the same parties, factual circumstances and issues.
The foregoing considered, Catelo cannot now seek refuge in the Second and Third CA judgments which were promulgated after the First CA Judgment became final and executory. Indeed, it is time to put an end to this litigation. Catelo should respect and comply with the First CA Judgment that has attained finality.
Catelo ought to remember that it is in the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated, as in this case. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 24, 2015 and the Resolution dated August 13, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137312, are hereby AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018; Del Castillo, J., and Gesmundo, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Petitioner used the name Arlene F. Catelo when she initiated the subject case (illegal constructive dismissal) on February 22, 2008 and thereafter. After she had obtained judicial annulment of marriage with her husband surnamed Catelo, she has been using her maiden name Arlene Formales.
1. Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 9-56.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Socorro B. Inting; id. at 57-69.
3. Id. at 70-71.
4. Id. at 72-90.
5. Id. at 91-105.
6. Comment dated September 28, 2011; Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 552-557; Manifestation/Motion dated February 13, 2012; id. at 562-563; Reply dated September 28, 2011; id. at 564-566; Petition for Certiorari dated October 25, 2011, id. at 567-575; Reply dated January 3, 2013; id. at 576-583.
7. Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 226-228.
8. Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 587-588.
9.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 229.
10.Id. at 325-327.
11. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Danton Q. Bueser; id. at 230-245.
12.Id. at 292.
13. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang; id. at 293-298.
14.Id. at 324.
15. As mentioned in Respondents' Comment; rollo, Vol. 2, p. 508.
16.Id.
17. As mentioned in Respondents' Comment; rollo, Vol. 2, p. 509.
18.Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 346-358.
19.Id. at 359-367.
20.Id. at 368-369.
21.Id. at 63.
22.Macawiag v. Judge Balindog, 533 Phil. 735, 747 (2006).
23. 622 Phil. 215 (2009).
24.Id. at 230-231.
25.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 68.
26.Land Bank of the Phils. v. Arceo, et al., 581 Phil. 77, 86 (2008).
27.Mallion v. Alcantara, 536 Phil. 1049, 1054 (2006).
28.Republic of the Phils. (Civil Aeronautics Administration) v. Yu, 519 Phil. 391, 398 (2006).
29.Villarino v. Avila, G.R. No. 131191, September 26, 2006.