FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217878. July 6, 2021.]
PAPERTECH, INC., petitioner, vs. PAPERTECH LABOR UNION (PALU-NAFLU-KMU) AND ITS UNION OFFICERS DANNY PARAS, RICARDO SOLANA, JOSEPHINE KATANDO, JENA QUIJANO, RICHARD FLORES, JOHNNY PACORSA, MARK ANTHONEY* TABLIZO, RODEL SUSTIGUER, AND MARIA**TALASTASIN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217878 — PAPERTECH, INC., petitioner, versus PAPERTECH LABOR UNION (PALU-NAFLU-KMU) and its UNION OFFICERS DANNY PARAS, RICARDO SOLANA, JOSEPHINE KATANDO, JENA QUIJANO, RICHARD FLORES, JOHNNY PACORSA, MARK ANTHONEY TABLIZO, RODEL SUSTIGUER, and MARIA TALASTASIN, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolutions dated January 28, 2015 2 and April 15, 2015 3 of the Court of Appeals 4 (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 138437, which dismissed petitioner Papertech, Inc.'s (Papertech) petition for certiorari for being filed out of time.
This case stemmed from the execution of the decision in the illegal strike case filed by Papertech against its striking employees, which included herein respondents, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 03-04267-08. 5 On April 17, 2013, the Labor Arbiter (LA) issued a Writ of Execution declaring a statusquo between the parties, and ordering the reinstatement of the affected employees, without prejudice to their option to choose separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. 6 The Writ of Execution was served on Papertech on April 30, 2013. 7 On May 4, 2013, instead of reinstating respondents to their former positions in its Pasig City office, Papertech reinstated respondents to its offices in Cagayan de Oro City, Davao City, Cebu City, Iloilo City, and Pangasinan. 8
Respondents questioned their reinstatement before the LA, but the LA ruled against them. 9 Thus, respondents filed a Petition for Extraordinary Remedies docketed as NLRC LER Case No. 09-258-13. In a Resolution dated September 30, 2013, the NLRC granted respondents' petition and declared their reinstatement in Papertech's provincial offices as contrary to the decision being enforced. 10 This prompted Papertech to file a petition for certiorari with the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 135557. 11
Meanwhile, on November 25, 2013, Papertech reinstated respondents to their former positions in its Pasig City office. 12 Papertech, however, allegedly continued to make their working conditions miserable. 13 Respondents brought their concerns to the attention of the LA through a letter dated December 10, 2013. 14
LA Ruling
In an Order dated May 13, 2014, the LA held that respondents' complaint for unsatisfactory or discriminatory working conditions are matters which have arisen after their reinstatement, and should therefore be the subject of another complaint. 15 In addition, the LA also held that respondents are not entitled to wages, computed from the service of the Writ of Execution until their actual reinstatement, because they did not render compensable service during said period. 16 The dispositive portion of the May 13, 2014 LA Order reads as follows: cSEDTC
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondents' motions for payment of accrued salaries and contempt once again are hereby DENIED for lack of merit and, correspondingly, the instant case is finally declared as CLOSED and TERMINATED by reason of the remaining Respondents' reinstatement.
SO ORDERED."17
This prompted respondents to file another Petition for Extraordinary Remedies docketed as NLRC LER Case No. 05-133-14. 18
NLRC Ruling
In a Resolution 19 dated August 15, 2014, the NLRC granted respondents' Petition for Extraordinary Remedies. 20 The NLRC found Papertech liable to respondents for payment of accrued backwages reckoned from the service of the Writ of Execution on April 30, 2013 up to their actual reinstatement in Papertech's Pasig City office on November 25, 2013. 21 The dispositive portion of the August 15, 2014 Resolution reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED, and the Order dated May 13, 2014 of Labor Arbiter Thomas T. Que, Jr. in NLRC NCR CC No. 03-04267-08 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Private respondent Papertech, Inc. is ORDERED to pay petitioners Danilo T. Parras, Ricardo A. Solana, Josephine P. Katando, Jena V. Quijano, Richard O. Flores, Johnny C. Pacorsa, Mark Anthony T. Tablizo, Rodel L. Sustiguer and Marieta G. Talastasin their accrued backwages reckoned from the service of the Writ of Execution on April 30, 2013 up to petitioners' actual reinstatement on November 25, 2013.
SO ORDERED. 22
Papertech sought reconsideration of the above NLRC Resolution, but was denied in a Resolution 23 dated October 13, 2014. Thus, Papertech filed a petition for certiorari before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 138437).
CA Ruling
In the assailed January 28, 2015 Resolution, 24 the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari outright for being filed out of time. The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for being filed out of time.
SO ORDERED. 25
Papertech filed a motion for reconsideration 26 arguing that it timely filed its petition for certiorari on December 16, 2014. Papertech explained that it received a copy of the assailed October 13, 2014 NLRC Resolution on October 17, 2014, and not on October 13, 2014 as stated in its petition for certiorari. As proof of such allegation, Papertech attached to its motion for reconsideration a copy of the October 13, 2014 NLRC Resolution which bear the receiving stamp of its counsel with the date "OCT 17 2014." 27
The CA denied Papertech's motion for reconsideration on April 15, 2015. 28 Hence, this Petition.
In the meantime, on November 9, 2015, the CA rendered its Decision 29 in CA-G.R. SP No. 135557, upholding the propriety of respondents' reinstatement in Papertech's provincial offices as a valid exercise of management prerogative. According to the CA, respondents could no longer be reinstated to their former positions in Papertech's Pasig City office following the transfer of Papertech's manufacturing and production operations to its provincial offices. 30
Issues
The following issues are for resolution of the Court:
1. Whether Papertech timely filed its petition for certiorari before the CA; and
2. If so, whether respondents are entitled to backwages for the period of April 30, 2013 to November 25, 2013.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
Timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue that requires a review of the evidence presented on when the appeal was filed, 31 and when the appealing party received the assailed decision or resolution. Generally, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, and the Court will not normally undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented before the court a quo. Nonetheless, this rule admits of exceptions, such as when exceptional circumstances exist warranting a review of the court a quo's findings of fact. 32
Under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, copies of resolutions may be served upon the parties by personal service, registered mail, or courier authorized by the NLRC. 33 The return shall be prima facie proof of the circumstances pertaining to the service, 34 including the date it was made. Meanwhile, under the Rules of Court, which finds suppletory application to labor proceedings, proof of service consists of: a written admission of the receiving party, the official return, or an affidavit of service in case of personal service; an affidavit of service in case of ordinary mail; or, an affidavit of service and registry receipt in case of registered mail. 35 A mere notation made by a party with respect to the service made upon him, including the date of receipt, is not sanctioned by the foregoing rules on proof of service. Indeed, in NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. v. Talavera, 36 the Court, contrasting a written record or note of a party against a Registry Return Card, held that "a written record or note of a party x x x is often self-serving and easily fabricated." 37
Nonetheless, the Court is inclined to afford Papertech some liberality given the following circumstances and the merits of the Petition. SDAaTC
The Court notes that the receiving stamp referred to by Papertech, which bears the date "OCT 17 2014," is superimposed on the Notice of Resolution 38 dated October 16, 2014. It is, thus, improbable for Papertech to have received its copy of the October 13, 2014 NLRC Resolution on October 13, 2014 as stated in its petition for certiorari, or at any time earlier than October 16, 2014. In other words, the earliest date that Papertech could have received a copy of the October 13, 2014 NLRC Resolution is on October 16, 2014. Although the receiving stamp is the lone proof of receipt submitted by Papertech, the Court is convinced that Papertech merely mistyped the date of receipt in its petition for certiorari and that it indeed received a copy of the October 13, 2014 NLRC Resolution on October 17, 2014.
While the normal course of action would be to remand the case to the appellate court for decision on the merits, it is well within the Court's broad review powers to render judgment on the merits for the expeditious administration of justice.
The core controversy in this case is whether respondents are entitled to backwages for the period of April 30, 2013 to November 25, 2013 as decreed in the August 15, 2014 NLRC Resolution.
In addressing said issue, the Court must necessarily look into the propriety of respondents' reinstatement in Papertech's provincial offices, and determine first whether their reinstatement thereat complies with the Writ of Execution. After all, an employer only becomes liable for accrued wages when it reneges on its duty to effect physical or payroll reinstatement pursuant to a final and executory reinstatement order.
Relevantly, the issue of whether Papertech complied with the Writ of Execution directing it to reinstate respondents has already been resolved by the November 9, 2015 CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 135557 which is now final and executory as the Court noted in Tablizo v. Papertech, Inc.39 and Papertech, Inc. v. Katando. 40 Said CA Decision declared respondents' reinstatement in Papertech's provincial offices consistent with the Writ of Execution and a valid exercise of management prerogative:
Here, We agree with the Labor Arbiter that the individual private respondents could no longer be reinstated to their former positions in the company's premises in Pasig City because supervening events render such reinstatement impossible. Papertech succeeds in proving by substantial evidence that the respective positions of the individual private respondents were transferred to the provinces in its attempt to maintain economic viability and to keep the company's business operation[s] abreast with the prevailing market competition. It had amply shown that the manufacturing and production departments, to which the individual respondents were employed, were transferred to its provincial plants which was necessary to implement the "decentralization" of its business operations and that what remained in Pasig City premises are those related in sales, marketing and distribution operations.
Nonetheless, despite the abolition of the positions that the individual private respondents held in the Pasig City premises, petitioner willingly and voluntarily assigned them to equivalent positions in the different plants or job sites in the provinces. To Us, the re-assignment constitutes reasonable exercise of management prerogative to which We should not interfere absent any vestiges of bad faith and ill motive. More importantly, We find the same to be just and reasonable under the prevailing circumstances. Accordingly, We should not penalize [Papertech's] exercise of such prerogative by compelling it to allocate positions to the private respondents where none is available.
The private respondents, however, adamantly refused the re-assignment by bewailing that the same is a blatant subterfuge to prevent their reinstatement. Unfortunately for them, other than their bare assertions, they failed to present countervailing evidence to support said claim. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, We GRANT the Petition for Certiorari. The Resolutions dated September 30, 2013 and November 29, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division, rendered in NLRC LER NO. 09-258-13/NLRC NCR NO. 03-04267-08 are NULLIFIED and a new one is ENTERED directing the individual private respondents to report back to work in the places designated by Papertech, Inc. as per notice of Job Assignments dated May 4, 2013, or if they obstinately refuse such assignment, ordering the latter company to pay the former separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, as fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year.
SO ORDERED. 41
Thus, given that the foregoing decision has attained finality, res judicata, in the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment," has already set in. "Res judicata has two aspects: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment as provided under Section 47 (b) and (c), Rule 39, respectively, of the Rules of Court. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different cause of action." 42 acEHCD
In Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. v. Kolin Philippines International, Inc., 43 the Court explained how the principle of "conclusiveness of judgment" is applied:
Section 49(c) of Rule 39 enumerates the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. This is the second branch, otherwise known as collateral estoppel or estoppel by verdict. This applies where, between the first case wherein judgment is rendered and the second case wherein such judgment is involved, there is no identity of causes of action. As explained by this Court:
It has been held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issues be identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit; but the adjudication of an issue in the first case is not conclusive of an entirely different and distinct issue arising in the second. In order that this rule may be applied, it must clearly and positively appear, either from the record itself or by the aid of competent extrinsic evidence that the precise point or question in issue in the second suit was involved and decided in the first. And in determining whether a given question was an issue in the prior action, it is proper to look behind the judgment to ascertain whether the evidence necessary to sustain a judgment in the second action would have authorized a judgment for the same party in the first action. 44
Here, the requirements of identity of parties, i.e., Papertech and respondents, and identity of issues, i.e., whether respondents' reinstatement in Papertech's provincial offices complies with the Writ of Execution, are present. Thus, the ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 135557 — that Papertech complied with the Writ of Execution — binds the parties. As such, there is no basis to award backwages in favor of respondents.
Indeed, the August 15, 2014 NLRC Resolution which granted respondents backwages is expressly hinged on the September 30, 2013 NLRC Resolution which, in turn, has already been reversed and set aside in the November 9, 2015 CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 135557. Hence, the August 15, 2014 NLRC Resolution or the award of backwages has no more leg to stand on.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari dated June 15, 2015 is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated January 28, 2015 and April 15, 2015 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 138437, as well as the Resolutions dated August 15, 2014 and October 13, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, in NLRC LER Case No. 05-133-14, are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated May 13, 2014 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC NCR Case No. 03-04267-08 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also appears as Anthony in some parts of the rollo.
** Also appears as Marietta in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 14-36.
2.Id. at 38-41. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
3.Id. at 43-44.
4. Eighth Division and Former Eighth Division.
5. See rollo, p. 134.
6. See id. at 133, 139.
7. See id. at 141.
8. See id. at 146, 140.
9. See id. at 136, 332.
10.Id. at 137, 333.
11. See Decision dated November 9, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 135557 penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino. Id. at 328-338.
12. See rollo, p. 137.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 133.
16. See id.
17.Id.
18. See id. at 132.
19.Id. at 132-143.
20.Id. at 142.
21. See id. at 141.
22.Id. at 142-143.
23.Id. at 184-186.
24.Id. at 37-41.
25.Id. at 40.
26.Id. at 179-182.
27.Id. at 183.
28.Id. at 42-44.
29.Supra note 11.
30.Id. at 335.
31.Republic v. Martinez, G.R. Nos. 224438-40, September 3, 2020, p. 6, accessed at <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/16642/>.
32. INTERNAL RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 4.
33. 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE, as amended, Rule III, Sec. 4.
34.Id., Rule III, Sec. 5.
35. RULES OF COURT, Rule 13, Sec. 13 provides:
SEC. 13. Proof of Service. — Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
36. G.R. No. 175894, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 183.
37.Id. at 191.
38.Rollo, p. 183.
39. G.R. No. 254051, February 3, 2021 (Unsigned Resolution), accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/18582/>.
40. G.R. No. 236020, January 8, 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10680/>.
41.Rollo, pp. 335-338.
42.Norkis Trading Corporation v. Buenavista, G.R. No. 182018, October 10, 2012, 683 SCRA 406, 430.
43. G.R. No. 228165, February 9, 2021, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/19346/>.
44.Id. at 15.