SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 243304 & 243306. February 10, 2021.]
THE MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION AND ENRIQUE YAP, JR., petitioners,vs. WILBERT BAYOBAY, SAMMY VISPERAS, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. Nos. 243400-01. February 10, 2021.]
WILBERT BAYOBAY, ET AL., petitioners,vs. THE MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 February 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 243304 & 243306 (The Manila Hotel Corporation and Enrique Yap, Jr. v. Wilbert Bayobay, Sammy Visperas, et al.) and G.R. Nos. 243400-01 (Wilbert Bayobay, et al. v. The Manila Hotel Corporation, et al.). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the consolidated petitions for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its June 26, 2018 Decision 1 and November 26, 2018 Resolution, 2 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
In G.R. Nos. 243304 & 243306, the arguments raised by petitioners are a mere rehash of what was already resolved and passed upon by the appellate court.
Moreover, this Court does not agree with petitioners' argument that the CA relied on the wrong provision of the law in ruling that the compromise agreements executed by Rommel P. Bulanadi, Joel O. Alvaran, Manuel M. Albay, Jr., Milo M. Manero, Frederick P. Estimo, Ariel C. Santos, Allan C. Peña, Vicente F. Jose, Jr., Jovito I. Bautista, Reynaldo G. Ceralvo, 3 Oscar M. Iñigo, Jr., Arnel Dela Cruz Rante, Fernando P. Palma, Santiago Fernando and Sherwin Gabriel 4 were not valid. The CA stated the correct provision applicable in the instant case:
In addition, Section 1, Rule 9(sic) of the Revised Rules on Labor Laws Compliance System (Department Order No. 131-B) provides a similar requirement for the validity of compromise agreements issued as a matter of compliance to the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE secretary. To quote:
Section 1. Compromise Agreement. — Should the parties arrive at an agreement as to the whole or part of the dispute, said agreement shall be reduced in writing and signed by the parties in the presence of the Regional Director, or his/her duly authorized representative.
The Compromise Agreement shall bind the parties provided that the person making the compromise did so voluntarily, with full understanding of the facts and of the consequence thereof, and for a consideration which is adequate and reasonable. 5
The above-mentioned provision pertains to Section 1, Rule XIV of the Revised Rules on Labor Laws Compliance System. What is controlling is the provision mentioned by the CA. Moreover, this provision is not the only basis of the CA in ruling against petitioners, as the latter also cited Sec. 8, Rule II of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices.
In G.R. Nos. 243400-01, petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. 6 Herein petitioners omitted, without good reason, to file a motion for reconsideration or to timely appeal the June 23, 2016 Resolution 7 of the Department of Labor and Employment which reduced the number of employees entitled to service incentive leave pay and service charge. Hence, the June 23, 2016 Resolution had become final and executory as to them.
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are DENIED. The June 26, 2018 Decision and November 26, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 147128 and CA-G.R. SP No. 148617 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 243304 & 243306), pp. 30-45; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
2.Id. at 47-51.
3. Referred to as Reynaldo G. "Ceralyo" in other parts of the rollo.
4.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 243304 & 243306), p. 15.
5.Id. at 43.
6.Philippine Postal Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 722 Phil. 860, 872-873 (2013).
7.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 243400-01), pp. 259-265.