FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202689. February 3, 2014.]
REACHOUT FOODS SALES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ANNIEWAI MALLAPRE, ANTONIO DELOS SANTOS, ELMA LABERINTO, BRENDA RASAY, LUZVIMINDA CALVARIO, MARITES MILAMBILING, OLIVIA BALDOZA, ROSENDO RAMOS, LOURDES MAGNO, ARCELI ESPIRITU AND CHERYLL GRINNEL, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 3, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202689 (Reachout Foods Sales Corporation vs. Anniewai Mallapre, Antonio delos Santos, Elma Laberinto, Brenda Rasay, Luzviminda Calvario, Marites Milambiling, Olivia Baldoza, Rosendo Ramos, Lourdes Magno, Arceli Espiritu and Cheryll Grinnel). — On October 11, 2006, in view of the complaint for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay and overtime pay filed by several employees of petitioner Reachout Foods Sales Corporation (RFSC), a complaint inspection was conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. IV-A were several violations were noted. HCEcaT
In December 2006, the respondents signed their individual Quitclaims and Release in favor of RFSC covering their 13th month pay for the years 2003 to 2006. 1 However, in its Order 2 dated January 26, 2007, the DOLE Regional Director held that the said quitclaims were without force and effect as they were not signed in his presence or that of his authorized representative. Unaware of said order, on February 12, 2007, the respondents signed another set of Quitclaims and Release in favor of RFSC. 3
Meanwhile, RFSC filed a motion for reconsideration before the DOLE Secretary. In its Order 4 dated March 12, 2009, the DOLE Secretary denied the motion, prompting RFSC to file a motion for reconsideration which was also denied for lack of merit. RFSC then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision 5 dated February 14, 2012, the CA affirmed with modification the rulings of the DOLE Secretary and held RFSC solely liable for the amounts adjudged in favor of the respondents and absolved Gottrich Foods Incorporated, Foodstar Corporation and Super Mega Foods Corporation of any liability. This caused RFSC to take recourse to this Court.
On March 21, 2013, RFSC and respondents entered into a Compromise Agreement 6 before the Philippine Mediation Center CA Unit in order to put an end to their dispute. Thus, a Motion for Judgment on Compromise Agreement 7 was filed by RFSC. In its Resolution 8 dated July 3, 2013, the Court required the respondents to file their Comment on the said motion. In their Comment, 9 the respondents raised no objection to the motion and declared that they have voluntarily entered into said agreement with RFSC. ACcEHI
All told, the Court finds that the Compromise Agreement is not contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy. Moreover, it appears to be freely executed by RFSC and the respondents, with the assistance of their respective counsels. The Court finds no reason not to grant the prayer of the parties and hereby bestows judicial approval of their Compromise Agreement.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to NOTE and APPROVE the Compromise Agreement dated March 21, 2013. The parties are enjoined to abide by its terms and conditions, and to comply strictly and faithfully with their corresponding obligations.
The case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 107-117.
2. Id. at 321-324.
3. Id. at 157-166.
4. Id. at 75-79A.
5. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; id. at 27-39.
6. Id. at 439-444.
7. Id. at 435-438.
8. Id. at 468.
9. Id. at 489-490.