Mariano v. Royal Interocean Lines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ermidia A. Mariano was dismissed from the service of The Royal Interocean Lines on October 23, 1953. Procedural History: The appellee sought reconsideration of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. She had previously attempted to appeal a portion of the trial court's decision regarding retirement and age allowance but failed to perfect her appeal within the reglementary period. Her petitions for mandamus to compel the trial court to allow her record on appeal were dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of merit. The Appeal: The defendants-appellants appealed the decision of the trial court. The appellee, in her motion for reconsideration, argued that the regulations regarding allowances formed part of her contract and entitled her to benefits, even if she had not met the conditions for retirement and age allowance as found by the trial court. She also sought to raise issues that had become final due to her failure to perfect an appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellee was entitled to 30 days' notice or payment of one month's salary (mesada) upon dismissal, considering the laws in effect at the time of her dismissal. Whether issues that have become final and executory due to the failure to perfect an appeal can be relitigated through a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court upheld its previous judgment, finding that the appellee was not entitled to the benefits she claimed based on the laws in effect at the time of her dismissal and that the issues she attempted to raise again were already res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to mesada: The Court reiterated that on October 23, 1953, the date of the appellee's dismissal, Article 302 of the Code of Commerce, which authorized dismissal with 30 days' notice or payment of one month's salary (mesada) for employees engaged for an indefinite period, had been repealed by the new Civil Code. It was only on June 12, 1954, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 1052, that this right was revived. Therefore, at the time of her dismissal, the appellee, employed not for a fixed period, could be dismissed even without cause and was not entitled to the notice or mesada. On res judicata: The Court held that the appellee could not raise issues that had already been passed upon by the trial court and from which she failed to perfect an appeal. Her attempts to compel the trial court to allow her record on appeal through petitions for mandamus were dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of merit. Consequently, that part of the judgment became final and executory, and the principle of res judicata barred her from raising these issues again in the motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming that an employee hired for an indefinite period, dismissed at a time when Article 302 of the Code of Commerce was repealed by the Civil Code and before Republic Act No. 1052 took effect, was not entitled to 30 days' notice or one month's salary (mesada). Additionally, issues from which an appellee failed to perfect an appeal, despite attempts, become final and executory, rendering them res judicata and barring their re-examination.