Urbano v. Coca-Cola Beverages Philippines, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 247887. November 11, 2021.]

JEROME G. URBANO, ROGELIO D. SALENGA, LAURENCE D. PINEDA, CEZAR D. PINEDA, JR., JR A. OWANO, BASILIO A. MANN, JR., VERNI L. ESGUERRA, JUANCHO M. MEJIA, GELBERT R. BALORIA, ROLANDO D. TACDERAN, NERI D. PEÑALBA, ROMMEL G. SUMOOK, ROBEL D. MERCADO, ANTONIO D. VASQUEZ, DENNIS S. BENDICIO, ARIES M. TURLA, BERNIE Y. LAPUZ, JUSTH I. PITEL, JO ARVIN B. CANLAS, MARVIN B. QUIZON, ALFRED B. DAVID, EDGAR Y. CABILES, JEFFREY M. PINEDA, JEFFREY D. DELA CRUZ, EMILIO L. PARE, ANTHONY B. CABRITIT, ALLAN T. BALTAZAR, JOEL G. URBANO, ROBIN S. CORTEZ, TEDDY C. YUMUL, RODERICK G. MANALASTAS, VLADIMIR P. CASER, RAYMOND R. NUÑEZ, PATRICK C. CASUPANAN, RICHARD P. ESGUERRA, DANDREB A. CELSO, AMADO T. MERCADO, FAUSTO C. DUNGCA, ERNESTO J. VITAL, AND NEMICIO D. PALALON, petitioners, vs.COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCBPI) FORMERLY KNOWN AS COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCFPI), respondent.

[G.R. No. 247996. November 11, 2021.]

COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.ARIES M. TURLA, JO ARVIN B. CANLAS, JOEL G. URBANO, AND ERNESTO J. VITAL, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court's First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 247887:Jerome G. Urbano, Rogelio D. Salenga, Laurence D. Pineda, Cezar D. Pineda, Jr., JR A. Owano, Basilio A. Mann, Jr., Verni L. Esguerra, Juancho M. Mejia, Gelbert R. Baloria, Rolando D. Tacderan, Neri D. Peñalba, Rommel G. Sumook, Robel D. Mercado, Antonio D. Vasquez, Dennis S. Bendicio, Aries M. Turla, Bernie Y. Lapuz, Justh I. Pitel, Jo Arvin B. Canlas, Marvin B. Quizon, Alfred B. David, Edgar Y. Cabiles, Jeffrey M. Pineda, Jeffrey D. Dela Cruz, Emilio L. Pare, Anthony B. Cabritit, Allan T. Baltazar, Joel G. Urbano, Robin S. Cortez, Teddy C. Yumul, Roderick G. Manalastas, Vladimir P. Caser, Raymond R. Nuñez, Patrick C. Casupanan, Richard P. Esguerra, Dandreb A. Celso, Amado T. Mercado, Fausto C. Dungca, Ernesto J. Vital, and Nemicio D. Palalon v. Coca-Cola Beverages Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) formerly known as Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. (CCFPI)

G.R. No. 247996:Coca-Cola Beverages Philippines, Inc. v. Aries M. Turla, Jo Arvin B. Canlas, Joel G. Urbano, and Ernesto J. Vital

We deny the petitions.

Under the doctrine of immutability of judgments, a decision that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect regardless if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and whether it was made by the court which rendered it or by the highest court of the land. 1 Although it admits of exceptions, 2 none of them is being invoked here. In fact, both Coca-Cola and complainant-employees assert that their respective positions adhere to this doctrine.

Indeed, it is beyond dispute that the Decision 3 dated November 28, 2014 as modified by the Resolution 4 dated January 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131507, 132292, and 133198, as affirmed by the Court in G.R. 222306, 5 had already attained finality. The only question is whether the Order 6 dated February 9, 2017 of the Labor Arbiter conforms with the rulings in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131507, 132292 and 133198, as affirmed by the Court in G.R. 222306. We, thus, refer to the following table:

 

Decision dated November 28, 2014:   WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision 7 promulgated on May 31, 2013 and Resolution 8 promulgated on July 31, 2013 are MODIFIED, as follows:   1. DECLARING that respondent ROMAC is a labor-only contractor, and that the real employer of complainants (petitioners) Urbano, et al. is respondent Coca-cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.   2. DECLARING that complainants Urbano, et al., excluding Alfie Genova, JR Nicdao, and Juanito Manaloto, Jr., were illegally dismissed, rendering respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. liable therefor;   3. ORDERING respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. to reinstate said complainants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, with full back wages initially computed from the time they were illegally dismissed until their actual reinstatement;   4. DECLARING that the reinstatement aspect of this decision is immediately executory and ENJOINING respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. to submit a report of compliance therewith within ten (10) days from receipt of notice hereof; and   5. ORDERING said respondent to pay complainants attorney's fee equivalent to 10% of the total amount of the award.   SO ORDERED.   Resolution dated January 12, 2016:   WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding CCBPI's motion for partial reconsideration bereft of merit, the same is hereby DENIED. As for Urbano, et al.'s motion for partial reconsideration, the same is hereby GRANTED. Hence, the Court's decision dated November 28, 2014 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the computation of Urbano, et al.'s full backwages must include the salary differentials covered by the CBA for three (3) years prior to their dismissal.   SO ORDERED

Order dated February 9, 2017:   WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Fiscal Examiner is hereby ordered to make the necessary adjustments or amendments on the Update Computation of the complainants' judgment award as follows:   (A) For the 36 reinstated complainants:   1. The Fiscal Examiner's Report on their remaining payroll reinstatement wages or full back wages including CBA wage increases and benefits should be computed for the period from October 11, 2013 up to September 15, 2015 or for 23.17 months only, instead of October 9, 2013 up to September 15, 2015;   2. The Fiscal Examiner's Report on their wage and benefits (sic) differentials based on the submitted payslips vis-à-vis the CBA wage increases and CBA benefits which were not released to them during the given period from September 16, 2015 up to October 30, 2016 is hereby approved; and   3. The Fiscal Examiner's Report on their wage and benefits (sic) differentials should include the 13th month pay differentials from September 16, 2015 up to October 30, 2016.   (B) For the four (4) unreinstated complainants, namely: Aries Turla, Jo Arvin Canlas, Joel Urbano, and Ernesto Vital:   1. Their remaining payroll reinstatement wages or full backwages should be separately computed from October 11, 2013 up to October 30, 2016; and   2. The inclusion of their names in the computation of the 40 complainants' full backwages and CBA Wage Differentials as computed by Hon. LA Leandro M. Jose in the February 15, 2013 LA Decision for the period from the date of their dismissal until February 15, 2013 LA Decision, should be maintained.   (C) The inclusion of the 40 Complainants' FullBackwages and Wage Differentials in the Fiscal Examiner's Report based on the CBA for the period from the date of dismissal in 2012 up to the LA's Decision on February 15, 2013 Decision and was sustained by the January 12, 2016 CA Resolution, should be maintained as it is hereby approved; and   (D) The computation of the award of 10% attorney's fees should accordingly be adjusted based on the aggregate amount of the judgment award in the Fiscal Examiner's Amended Report.

 

On the number of employees ought to be reinstated

The final ruling of the Court of Appeals is clear: Urbano, et al., excluding Alfie Genova (Genova), JR Nicdao (Nicdao), and Juanito Manaloto, Jr. (Manaloto) were pronounced to have been illegally dismissed, hence, Urbano, et al. were entitled to reinstatement, with full backwages. As for the excluded individuals, to recall, Genova and Nicdao were dropped from the case on motion of their co-complainants while Manaloto voluntarily withdrew his complaint. Being non-parties to the case, these three (3) may not benefit from the ruling in favor of the remaining forty (40) complainants who pursued their complaint for illegal dismissal. In other words, only these forty (40) complainant-employees are entitled to reinstatement, with full backwages.

Coca-Cola, however, further seeks to exclude Joel G. Urbano (Urbano) and Ernesto J. Vital (Vital) for allegedly not seeking a reconsideration of the dismissal of their complaint in LAC No. 05-001487-13 on ground of prescription.

We do not agree.

First. To reiterate, there is no ambiguity in the Decision of the Court of Appeals as to the number of employees it declared illegally dismissed — all complainants except Genova, Nicdao and Manaloto, forty (40) employees all in all including Urbano and Vital, are entitled to reinstatement, with full backwages. The Court sustained this ruling on April 20, 2016 via G.R. 222306. 9 Coca-Cola no longer moved for its reconsideration, allowing the Court's affirmance to lapse into finality. Thus, whether the Court of Appeals and this Court erred in awarding full backwages to and ordering the reinstatement of Urbano and Vital may no longer be assailed.

Second. Coca-Cola never raised the inclusion of Urbano and Vital among those entitled to reinstatement as an issue when it first assailed the Order dated February 9, 2017 of the Labor Arbiter before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); it merely questioned the aforesaid Order insofar as the award of benefit differentials under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was earlier excluded by the Court of Appeals. This is an implied admission that Urbano and Vital are indeed covered by the order of reinstatement in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131507, 132292, and 133198.

Third. Urbano and Vital are similarly situated with Amado T. Mercado (Mercado) and Fausto C. Dungca (Dungca) whose complaints were also dismissed by the NLRC in LAC No. 05-001487-13 on ground of prescription. Yet, Coca-Cola never questioned the inclusion of Mercado and Dungca in the order of reinstatement and had in fact already reinstated these employees. We see no reason why Urbano and Vital should be treated differently.

Finally. Urbano and Vital may still benefit from the dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131507, 132292 and 133198 though they did not sign the verification along with their fellow complainant-employees. Since all forty (40) complainant-employees shared common arguments and pursued the same remedies against Coca-Cola, it is therefore logical that all forty (40) complainants should benefit from the same final and executory dispositions.

In Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. v. Inting, et al., 10 the Court recognized respondent employees as a collective body when they appealed their case to the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The Court noted that therein respondents raised only a single argument in support of their right against illegal dismissal. There was sufficient basis, therefore, to treat the appeal as filed by all fifty-nine (59) employees, albeit only twelve (12) of them signed its verification.

So must it be.

"Full backwages" includes wage differentials but not

Article 294 of the Labor Code elucidates on the extent of backwages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee, viz.:

ARTICLE 294. [279] Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. 11 (Emphases added)

Verily, the rule is that backwages for illegally dismissed employees should be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until reinstatement. In Dumapis v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., 12 the Court ordained the uniform rule that the award of backwages and/or separation pay due to illegally dismissed employees shall include all salary increases and benefits granted under the law and other government issuances, CBAs, employment contracts, established company policies and practices, and analogous sources which the employees would have been entitled to had they not been illegally dismissed. On the other hand, salary increases and other benefits which are contingent or dependent on variables such as an employee's merit increase based on performance or longevity or the company's financial status shall not be included in the award. 13

Here, by Decision 14 dated February 15, 2013 in RAB III-07-19080-12, Labor Arbiter Jose awarded "wages and benefits (sic) differentials according to the CBA" as part of the full backwages of the forty (40) complainant-employees. The NLRC initially affirmed this award in LAC No. 06-001487-13 but deleted it on reconsideration. In CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131507, 132292, and 133198, the Court of Appeals affirmed the deletion of the award, thus:

Petitioners Urbano, et al. failed to present proof that they were covered by the CBA at the time of their illegal dismissal, hence, they cannot claim to be entitled to the benefits thereof. In fact, petitioners admit that they were not receiving CBA benefits when they were illegally dismissed. 15

On reconsideration, however, the Court of Appeals modified its ruling and held that "the computation of Urbano, et al.'s full backwages must include the salary differentials covered by the CBA for three (3) years prior to their dismissal." Notably, the award of other benefit differentials was not reinstated. The Court sustained this via G.R. 222306.

Based on this sequence of events and rulings, it becomes clear that complainant-employees are entitled to wage differentials only under the CBA. Yet, in its Order dated February 9, 2017, the Labor Arbiter awarded not just wage differentials but other CBA benefits as well, thus:

For the 36 reinstated complainants:

1. The Fiscal Examiner's Report on their remaining payroll reinstatement, wages or full back wages including CBA wage increases and benefits should be computed x x x from October 11, 2013 up to September 15, 2015 or for 23.17 months only, instead of October 9, 2013 up to September 15, 2015; 16 (Emphasis added)

Again, this is contrary to the Resolution dated January 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals which denied complainants' claim for these benefits.

It bears stress that the issue of whether complainants are entitled to other benefit differentials under the CBA had already been resolved with finality. Such ruling, therefore, is immutable and may no longer be relitigated in the guise of a re-computation. The Labor Arbiter, thus, erred in including benefit differentials based on the CBA, other than wages, in its computation of monetary awards in favor of complainants.

As a point of clarification, in Dumapis, 17 the Court included other CBA benefits in the computation of therein petitioners' backwages since they were able to prove that they were entitled to it at the time of their dismissal. In the present case, however, where the complainant-employees themselves admitted that they were not entitled to CBA benefits when they got dismissed.

The non-reinstated complainant-employees are

As earlier discussed, Aries M. Turla (Turla), Jo Arvin B. Canlas (Canlas), Urbano, and Vital are among the forty (40) illegally dismissed employees of Coca-Cola who are entitled to full backwages and reinstatement. Turla and Canlas, however, allegedly refused to be reinstated despite receipt of notice to return to work. Urbano and Vital remain unreinstated as well. 18

Under these circumstances, are Turla, Canlas, Urbano and Vital entitled to separation pay? Or are they deemed to have abandoned their employment?

In Demex Rattancraft, Inc., et al. v. Leron, 19 the Court ruled that to successfully invoke abandonment as ground for dismissal, two (2) elements must concur: (a) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. There, petitioners asserted that respondent's non-compliance with the return-to-work notices and his alleged act of crumpling the first return-to-work notice were indicators of abandonment. These acts, however, did not sufficiently convince the Court that respondent unequivocally intended to sever his employment. In other words, the second element of abandonment was not established.

Here, Coca-Cola merely claims that it issued notices of reinstatement to Turla, Canlas, Urbano, and Vital who invariably refused to report for work. These claims, however, were unsubstantiated. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether Turla and Canlas truly, clearly, and unequivocally intended to sever the employer-employee relationship with Coca-Cola. As for Urbano and Canlas, it is not clear whether they were even served notice of the return to work orders. We, therefore, see no reason why they should be deemed to have abandoned their work.

In any event, should it turn out that Coca-Cola, on one hand, and Turla, Canlas, Urbano and Vital, on the other, are all truly no longer interested to implement the reinstatement order, then in lieu thereof, the Labor Arbiter may compute and award separation pay pursuant to Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman20 and Claudia's Kitchen, Inc. v. Tanguin. 21

In Bani Rural Bank, Inc., the Court recognized that if both the employer and employees were really interested in the employees' reinstatement, it should have been effected immediately. As it was, however, neither party had actually done anything to implement the order of reinstatement. It appeared, therefore, that the relations between them have been strained to such extent as to make the resumption of the employer-employee relationship unpalatable to both of them. Hence, the Court no longer insisted on reinstatement and awarded separation pay to the dismissed employees instead.

Too, in Claudia's Kitchen, Inc., the Court held that separation pay may be awarded when the continued relationship between the employer and the employee is no longer viable due to strained relations, or when the dismissed employee opted not to be reinstated, or the payment of separation benefits would be for the best interest of the parties involved.

Here, Coca-Cola's failure to reinstate Turla, Canlas, Urbano and Vital is indicative of the strained relations between them. Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable, as here. 22 Even in the absence of strained relations, however, separation pay may still be awarded here since it appears that Turla, Canlas, Urbano and Vital themselves, too, have opted not to be reinstated either.

Although the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was not specifically mentioned in the final dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131507, 132292 and 133198, the award thereof cannot be considered a violation of the rule on immutability of judgments. To repeat, a final judgment may no longer be modified even if it is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. An exception to this rule, however, is the existence of supervening events or facts transpiring after judgment has become final and executory. 23 In Bani Rural Bank, the Court deemed the strained relations between the employer and employees as a supervening event which justified the award of separation pay.

At any rate, we have already declared in Philacor Credit Corp. v. Osabal, 24 that whether it is expressly stated in the fallo of a pro-labor ruling, separation pay is always granted in lieu of reinstatement in instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible. The statement of this alternative in the fallo is a mere superfluity.

All told, despite the final and executory rulings in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131507, 132292, and 133198, as affirmed in G.R. 222306, Turla, Canlas, Urbano, and Vital may still be awarded separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement.

Summary

The Labor Arbiter violated the doctrine of immutability of judgments when it modified the dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131507, 132292 and 133198 through its Order dated February 9, 2017. It grievously erred when it included an award of benefit differentials, other than wage differentials, based on the CBA although the claim therefor was already denied by the Court of Appeals. These rulings of the Court of Appeals, as affirmed in G.R. 222306, had already attained finality, thus, immutable and may no longer be disturbed.

We, nevertheless, sustain the award of full backwages to all forty (40) complainant-employees, and separation pay in favor of Turla, Canlas, Urbano, and Vital. We agree with the Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals that the payment of separation benefits, in lieu of reinstatement, would be for the best interest of the parties involved.

ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated January 15, 2019 and Resolution dated June 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152591 are AFFIRMED.

The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for proper computation with the following guidance from the Court:

1. The award of full backwages shall cover all forty (40) complainants. Alfie Genova, Juanito Manaloto, Jr., and JR Nicdao are excluded from the list;

2. The computation of full backwages shall include wage differentials under the Collective Bargaining Agreement from three (3) years prior to illegal dismissal until reinstatement. All other benefit differentials under the Collective Bargaining Agreement are excluded; and

3. Aries Turla, Jo Arvin Canlas, Joel Urbano, and Ernesto Vital are entitled to separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement.

The reiterating motion for early resolution of petitioners in G.R. No. 247887, praying that the instant consolidated petitions be resolved without further delay for reasons stated therein, is NOTED. aScITE

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Republic, et al. v. Heirs of Cirilo Gotengco, 824 Phil. 568, 578 (2018).

2.Mercury Drug, et al. v. Spouses Huang, 817, Phil. 434, 446 (2017).

3. G.R. No. 247887, Vol. I, rollo, p. 26.

4. G.R. No. 247887, Vol. II, rollo, p. 734.

5. G.R. No. 247966, Vol. I, rollo, p. 572.

6. G.R. No. 247887, Vol. I, rollo, p. 494-508.

7. G.R. No. 247996, Vol. I, rollo, p. 137-162.

8.Id. at 163-193.

9.Supra note 5.

10. See 822 Phil. 314, 357 (2017).

11. Labor Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended by Sec. 34 RA No. 6715, Mar. 21, 1989.

12. G.R. No. 204060, September 15, 2020.

13.Id.

14. G.R. No. 247996, Vol. I, rollo, pp. 99-134.

15.Id. at 262.

16.Supra note 5 at 495.

17.Supra note 11.

18. G.R. No. 247996, Vol. I, rollo, p. 79.

19. See 820 Phil. 693, 695-697 (2017).

20. 721 Phil. 84, 90 (2013).

21. 811 Phil 784, 799 (2017).

22.Monsanto Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, et al., G.R. Nos. 230609-10, August 27, 2020.

23.Supra note 19.

24. G.R. No. 224955, July 28, 2020.