SKM Art Craft Corp. v. Bauca

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 171282. January 7, 2013.]

SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCALARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CEASAR MIGUELA, OCTABIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DE LOS REYES, NOMER MAÑAGO, ANTONIO BALUDCAL, LUDOVICO STA. CLARA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 183484. January 7, 2013.]

SKM ARTCRAFT CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCALARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CESAR MIGUELA, OCTAVIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DELOS REYES, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 7, 2013which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 171282 — SKM ART CRAFT CORPORATION, petitioner, versus EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCALARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CEASAR MIGUELA, OCTABIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DE LOS REYES, NOMER MAÑAGO, ANTONIO BALUDCAL, LUDOVICO STA. CLARA, respondents.

G.R. No. 183484 — SKM ARTCRAFT CORPORATION, petitioner, versus EFREN BAUCA, PATRICIO OLMILLA, ZALDY ESCALARES, PEDRITO OLMILLA, PEDRO BANAY, DANILO SOLDE, NOEL PALARCA, JULIUS CESAR MIGUELA, OCTAVIO OBIAS, ARVIN ABINES, RADDY TORRENCIO, FE RANIDO, EDNA MANSUETO, SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, RENATO TANGO, HERMOGENES OBIAS, DOMINGO LAROCO, DANTE AQUINO, ARMANDO VILLA, REGELIO DELOS REYES, respondents. HESCcA

Before us is a joint manifestation and motion 1 dated September 24, 2012 signed by Attys. Carlos Paulo M. Villaruz and Anthony Jordan L. Sy of Esguerra & Blanco law office, counsel for petitioner SKM Artcraft Corporation, and Atty. Lily S. Dayaon-Ireno, counsel for respondents. Petitioner SKM Artcraft Corporation and all respondents, through said counsels, pray that we "consider these petitions closed and terminated in view of the amicable settlement entered into by all the parties in these cases." 2

To recall our February 27, 2012 Resolution, 3 we found that only 17 of the 23 named respondents in G.R. No. 171282 have opted to settle the case, that we have already denied the petition in G.R. No. 183484, and that among the remaining respondents in G.R. No. 183484 only respondent Sandro Rodriguez has executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim. For clarity, we quote the full text of the February 27, 2012 Resolution:

For the reasons explained below, we deny petitioner's prayer in its manifestation and motion for clarification dated January 20, 2012 that we consider these petitions closed and terminated in view of the amicable settlement entered into by all the parties.

As regards G.R. No. 171282, there are 23 named respondents but only 17 of them, based on our records, have opted to settle the case. In this case, we received a manifestation and motion dated January 16, 2007 filed by Esguerra and Blanco Law Office as counsel for petitioner and Atty. Lily S. Dayaon-Ireno as counsel for respondents. Counsels stated that petitioner and 15 respondents have arrived at a compromise agreement and that the 15 respondents have executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim. Counsels named these 15 respondents as: (1) Efren Bauca, (2) Noel Palarca, (3) Patricio Olmilla, (4) Pedrito Olmilla, (5) Zaldy Escalares, (6) Danilo Solde, (7) Julius Ceasar Miguela, (8) Fe R. Ranido-Miguela, (9) Hermogenes T. Obias, (10) Antonio Baludcal, (11) Renato Tango, (12) Armando Villa, (13) Arvin Abines, (14) the heirs of Ludyvico Sta. Clara, and (15) Octavio T. Obias. Another manifestation and motion dated June 13, 2007 was later filed involving respondent Dante Aquino. Thus, in our Resolution dated September 19, 2007 in G.R. No. 171282, we granted the two motions that the petition be dismissed insofar as the aforenamed 16 respondents are concerned. On October 11, 2011, we also considered these cases (G.R. No. 171282 and G.R. No. 183484) closed and terminated as to respondent Sandro Rodriguez who executed his own Release, Waiver and Quitclaim. Nonetheless, nothing prevents petitioner from withdrawing its own petition if it is convinced that it has settled its dispute with all 23 respondents. If it decides to do so, we can consider the petition withdrawn. And if it turns out that some of the 23 respondents have not agreed to settle this case, then they can have succor from the favorable judgment of the Court of Appeals. cCAIES

On the other hand, as regards the petition in G.R. No. 183484, we have already denied said petition for review for petitioner's failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution, to wit:

Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments in the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 183484 of the Decision and Resolution dated 10 January 2007 and 06 June 2008, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 92132, the Court furthermore resolves to DENY the petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

A careful consideration of the petition likewise indicates the failure of petitioner to show any cogent reason why the actions of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals, which have passed upon the same issue(s), should be reversed. Petitioner failed to show that their factual findings are not based on substantial evidence or that their decisions are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence. . . .

We also note that among the remaining respondents in this case only respondent Sandro Rodriguez has executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's prayer that these petitions be considered closed and terminated is denied for lack of merit, without prejudice to the filing by petitioner of an appropriate motion to withdraw its petition in G.R. No. 171282 if it so desires.

The Court further resolves to require petitioner and Atty. Lily S. Dayaon-Ireno to INFORM the Court of the current and correct address of Atty. Gay T. Escalada, the named counsel for respondents in G.R. No. 171282, within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED. SDHCac

On June 20, 2012, we issued another Resolution 4 noting petitioner's compliance that Atty. Gay T. Escalada-Clavel's address on record is still the same, that Atty. Escalada's hometown is Orion, Bataan, and that one Atty. Gay T. Escalada-Clavel was appointed Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Balanga, Bataan. We also noted Atty. Lily S. Dayaon-Ireno's compliance that she has no more knowledge of the whereabouts of Atty. Escalada who "bolted out in 2005 as an associate of her law office." Nonetheless, we directed that the February 27 and June 20, 2012 Resolutions be served upon Atty. Gay T. Escalada-Clavel at Orion, Bataan and at the RTC. We also resolved to give due course to the petition in G.R. No. 171282 and required the parties to submit memoranda. And we directed that entry of judgment be made in due course in G.R. No. 183484. Until now, we have not heard from Atty. Gay T. Escalada or Atty. Gay T. Escalada-Clavel.

Nor did petitioner move to withdraw the petition in G.R. No. 171282. Rather, Attys. Villaruz, Sy and Dayaon-Ireno filed the instant joint manifestation and motion. Thus, our doubt remains regarding the claim that all the 23 named respondents in G.R. No. 171282 have entered into an amicable settlement with the petitioner. To be sure, under the circumstances, Attys. Villaruz, Sy and Dayaon-Ireno cannot begrudge the Court in refusing to consider the petition in G.R. No. 171282 closed and terminated.

As we said, and we repeat it here, nothing prevents petitioner from withdrawing its own petition in G.R. No. 171282 if it is convinced that it has settled its dispute with all 23 named respondents. If it decides to do so, we will willingly consider the petition withdrawn for then our action will not prejudice any respondent in G.R. No. 171282.

Nonetheless, counsels' insistence that there was an amicable settlement by all the parties in G.R. No. 171282 also shows their resolve to prove their claim of settlement. We will not deny them the chance to prove their claim by adequate proof, such as a verified admission by all the 23 respondents in G.R. No. 171282 that they have entered into a settlement agreement with the petitioner. We can also evaluate original copies of their Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, as we did in the case of respondent Sandro Rodriguez.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the prayer in the joint manifestation and motion dated September 24, 2012 that we consider the petition in G.R. No. 171282 closed and terminated, without prejudice to the filing by petitioner of an appropriate motion to withdraw its petition in G.R. No. 171282, or to the submission of verified admissions by all the 23 respondents in G.R. No. 171282 that they have entered into a settlement agreement with the petitioner or of original copies of their Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.

Accordingly, the period to file the parties' memoranda in G.R. No. 171282 is SUSPENDED for 90 days only, counted from receipt of this Resolution.

The Judicial Records Office is also DIRECTED to inform the Court, within 30 days, if entry of judgment can already be made in G.R. No. 193484.

Service of this Resolution is ordered to be made upon the parties themselves and their counsels.

SO ORDERED." BERSAMIN, J., took no part; CARPIO, J., additional member per raffle dated March 22, 2010. SHacCD

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo (G.R. No. 171282), pp. 666-668.

2.Id. at 668.

3.Id. at 651-654.

4.Id. at 664-665.