Zebra Security Agency and Allied Services v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents, security guards, claimed employment with petitioner Ma. Theresa Estavillo doing business as Zebra Security Agency and Allied Services (ZEBRA) from 1989 through 1990, filing complaints for underpayment of wages and non-payment of various statutory benefits. Petitioners denied employment for some guards, asserting ZEBRA commenced operations only in March 1988, while admitting employment for others but claiming full payment and alleging irregular employment status. Private respondents countered that ZEBRA and Armor Security Services, Inc. (ARMOR), their alleged previous employer, were the same entity owned by Norma Ortiz, with Estavillo as a dummy, whereas petitioners argued ARMOR and ZEBRA were distinct entities and ARMOR's guards were absorbed by another agency upon ARMOR's cessation of operations. Procedural History: Labor Arbiter Gregorio Calasan ordered petitioners to pay private respondents P374,126.50 for unpaid benefits, a judgment that became final and executory due to petitioners' failure to appeal. Petitioners' petition for relief from judgment was treated by the NLRC as an appeal but denied for failure to specify valid defenses, and subsequent motions to drop complainants based on affidavits of retraction did not alter this denial. Petitioners elevated this to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 109161-67), which dismissed their petition for being filed out of time and finding no grave abuse of discretion, with the resolution becoming final and executory. Meanwhile, private respondents moved for execution, which petitioners opposed by filing a motion to quash the writ of execution and to set the case for hearing, alleging fabricated position papers and seeking recomputation, a motion the Labor Arbiter denied. Petitioners appealed this denial to the NLRC, claiming grave abuse of discretion and collateral attack on the final judgment, but the NLRC dismissed their appeal as filed out of time and because the award computations were already final and executory. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to enjoin the execution of the judgment, annul the NLRC resolution that dismissed their appeal, and set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision, while also praying to be allowed to present evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari should be granted despite a prior Supreme Court resolution dismissing a similar petition involving the same parties and issues, and whether the principle of 'law of the case' bars the relitigation of issues already decided with finality. Whether petitioners are guilty of forum shopping. Whether new documents are admissible and whether the failure to present evidence impacts the case.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 28 April 1994 in NLRC-CA No. L-000576-92 dismissing the appeal is AFFIRMED. The NLRC is directed to immediately implement the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter of 22 May 1992. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for certiorari and the application of 'law of the case': The Court found that the petition must fail because a prior minute resolution in G.R. Nos. 109161-67 had already dismissed a petition for certiorari involving the same parties and substantially the same issues. This prior dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion, meant that the challenged decision and its findings of fact and legal conclusions were deemed sustained. The principle of 'law of the case' dictates that once an appellate court has passed upon a legal question and remanded the cause, that legal question, as determined by the appellate court, will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case with the same facts. The Court emphasized that the prior resolution affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision awarding money claims, which had become final and executory. This decision could not be assailed even under the pretext of questioning the denial of a motion to quash the writ of execution. The 'law of the case' rule ensures finality and prevents endless litigation of settled issues. The Court cited Tan v. Nitafan and People v. Pinuila to support this principle. The current petition, by assailing the resolution that denied the motion to quash, was essentially attacking the final judgment, a matter already settled. The Court stated that petitioners were precluded from filing this second petition involving a matter necessarily connected to the first, as it was a deliberate attempt to resurrect a settled issue. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court found that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping. Norma Ortiz's certification of non-forum shopping, stating she had not commenced any other action involving the same issues, was deemed false. The Court observed that the instant petition involved essentially the same facts and issues as those raised in their first petition (G.R. Nos. 109161-67) and other pleadings. The purpose of these petitions and appeals was to forestall the execution of the judgment awarding money claims. The Court noted the substantial similarity in facts and issues between the two petitions. The Court reiterated that courts frown upon litigants reiterating identical petitions in the hope of a change of opinion. Willful and deliberate forum shopping constitutes contempt of court and is an abuse of court processes, leading to the dismissal of the pleading under Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. On the admissibility of new documents and the failure to present evidence: The Court rejected petitioners' claim of having new documents to justify a review. It held that the denial of the first petition bound the parties not only to matters offered but also to any other admissible matter that could have been offered. Petitioners' failure to submit their own employment records, payrolls, and time cards, despite their availability, even belatedly, was noted. The excuse that these records were voluminous was deemed insufficient. The Court also found that the MONTILLANO payrolls and mission orders, while presented, only covered specific employment periods for some guards and did not discount their employment by ZEBRA at other times. The Court concluded that petitioners could not conveniently offer new excuses or belatedly present evidence to reopen a case that had long been settled and had attained finality.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing a resolution that dismissed an appeal, which in turn affirmed a prior decision that had become final and executory, will fail if the issues raised were already passed upon and settled with finality in a previous petition involving the same parties and substantially the same facts and issues. The principle of 'law of the case' precludes relitigation of issues already decided by an appellate court. Furthermore, the filing of such a petition, when substantially identical issues have been raised in a prior petition, constitutes forum shopping.