By: Pearlie Jane Q. Binahon | July 25, 2018
FACTS:
Petitioners filed with the NLRC in Bacolod City two separate complaints which were docketed as RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 and RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97. RAB Case No.06-09-10698-97 was filed against herein private respondent alone, while RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 impleaded herein private respondent and a certain Fela Contractor as respondents. In RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97, herein petitioners asked that they be recognized and confirmed as regular employees of herein private respondent and further prayed that they be awarded various benefits received by regular employees for three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint, while in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, herein petitioners sought for payment of unpaid wages, holiday pay, allowances, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages also during the three (3) years preceding the filing of the complaint.
Private respondent (HPC) filed a Motion to Dismiss RAB Case No. 06-09-0698-97 on the ground of res judicata. The Labor Arbiter granted the same.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC which set aside the Order of the Labor Arbiter, reinstated the complaint in RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 and remanded the same for further proceedings.
HPC appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of the NLRC. The SC likewise affirmed the decision of the CA and remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter to determine which among Fela contractor and HPC is the real employer of the petitioners. In the meantime, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 holding that there is no employer-employee relations between private respondent and petitioners. And no appeal was taken therefrom. Thus, the same became final and executory. As a consequence of the finality of the Decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, herein private respondent again filed a Motion to Dismiss.
RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 on the ground, among others, of res judicata. Private respondent HPC contended that the final and executory Decision of the Labor Arbiter in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, which found no employer-employee relations between private respondent and petitioners, serves as a bar to the further litigation of RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97. Said Motion to Dismiss was denied. As a result, private respondent HPC filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) before the CA which granted the same. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not HPC availed of the proper remedy when its Motion to Dismiss was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter in RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97.
FACTS:
Petitioners filed with the NLRC in Bacolod City two separate complaints which were docketed as RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 and RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97. RAB Case No.06-09-10698-97 was filed against herein private respondent alone, while RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 impleaded herein private respondent and a certain Fela Contractor as respondents. In RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97, herein petitioners asked that they be recognized and confirmed as regular employees of herein private respondent and further prayed that they be awarded various benefits received by regular employees for three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint, while in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, herein petitioners sought for payment of unpaid wages, holiday pay, allowances, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages also during the three (3) years preceding the filing of the complaint.
Private respondent (HPC) filed a Motion to Dismiss RAB Case No. 06-09-0698-97 on the ground of res judicata. The Labor Arbiter granted the same.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC which set aside the Order of the Labor Arbiter, reinstated the complaint in RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 and remanded the same for further proceedings.
HPC appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of the NLRC. The SC likewise affirmed the decision of the CA and remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter to determine which among Fela contractor and HPC is the real employer of the petitioners. In the meantime, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 holding that there is no employer-employee relations between private respondent and petitioners. And no appeal was taken therefrom. Thus, the same became final and executory. As a consequence of the finality of the Decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, herein private respondent again filed a Motion to Dismiss.
RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 on the ground, among others, of res judicata. Private respondent HPC contended that the final and executory Decision of the Labor Arbiter in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, which found no employer-employee relations between private respondent and petitioners, serves as a bar to the further litigation of RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97. Said Motion to Dismiss was denied. As a result, private respondent HPC filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) before the CA which granted the same. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not HPC availed of the proper remedy when its Motion to Dismiss was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter in RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97.
HELD:
Yes. It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and it is not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside. In this regard, it should be reiterated that what has been filed by private respondent with the CA is a special civil action for certiorari assailing the Labor Arbiter's Order which denied its motion to dismiss. Section 3, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, which was then prevailing at the time of the filing of private respondent's petition for certiorari with the CA, clearly provides:
SECTION 3. MOTION TO DISMISS. - On or before the date set for the conference, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss. Any motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment, prescription or forum shopping, shall be immediately resolved by the Labor Arbiter by a written order. An order denying the motion to dismiss or suspending its resolution until the final determination of the case is not appealable.
The Labor Arbiter committed a grave abuse of discretion when it did not dismiss RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 upon motion of HPC on the ground of res judicata.
The Court explained: Conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.
Yes. It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and it is not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside. In this regard, it should be reiterated that what has been filed by private respondent with the CA is a special civil action for certiorari assailing the Labor Arbiter's Order which denied its motion to dismiss. Section 3, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, which was then prevailing at the time of the filing of private respondent's petition for certiorari with the CA, clearly provides:
SECTION 3. MOTION TO DISMISS. - On or before the date set for the conference, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss. Any motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment, prescription or forum shopping, shall be immediately resolved by the Labor Arbiter by a written order. An order denying the motion to dismiss or suspending its resolution until the final determination of the case is not appealable.
The Labor Arbiter committed a grave abuse of discretion when it did not dismiss RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 upon motion of HPC on the ground of res judicata.
The Court explained: Conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.
