Club Filipino, Inc. v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Following the expiration of their Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Club Filipino Employees Association (CLUFEA) sought to negotiate a new contract with Club Filipino, Inc. After several delays attributed to the Club’s management and a subsequent deadlock in negotiations, CLUFEA filed a Notice of Strike and staged a walkout on May 26, 2001. In response, Club Filipino filed a petition to declare the strike illegal, alleging that the union failed to comply with procedural requirements—specifically the attachment of bargaining proposals and counter-proposals to the notice—and that union members committed prohibited acts, such as cutting off utility services, during the strike. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and terminated the employment of all union officers. While the NLRC initially dismissed the union's appeal for lack of standing, the Court of Appeals reversed these rulings, finding that the strike was valid because the procedural requirements were not absolute and that the "wholesale dismissal" of officers without proof of individual knowing participation constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in a Resolution dated July 13, 2009, and subsequently denied Club Filipino’s first Motion for Reconsideration with finality on September 9, 2009, leading to an Entry of Judgment. The Petition: Club Filipino, Inc. filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court admitted as a second Motion for Reconsideration in the interest of justice. The petitioner argues that the Court’s previous resolution should be reversed based on the principle of res judicata, asserting that a separate, final ruling by the NLRC in an illegal dismissal case—which upheld the validity of a retrenchment program involving the same respondents—precludes the award of backwages and separation pay in this illegal strike case. The petitioner further contends that the execution of the current judgment would result in manifest injustice through double compensation for the respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration prevented the Supreme Court's Resolution dated July 13, 2009, from becoming final and executory. Whether the NLRC's Decision on the illegal dismissal case was res judicata on the illegal strike case.
Ruling
The Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with finality. The Entry of Judgment issued in this case is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The filing of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, even with leave of court, did not prevent the Supreme Court's Resolution dated July 13, 2009, from becoming final and executory. As a general rule, second motions for reconsideration are prohibited under Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court and Rule 15, Section 3 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, unless granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership, or upon express leave obtained for extraordinarily persuasive reasons. While leave was granted for the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, this did not toll the 15-day period for the resolution to become final and executory, which is reckoned from the parties' receipt of the resolution. The grant of leave only means that the Entry of Judgment may be lifted if the second motion is granted. In this case, the resolution became final and executory on October 26, 2009, after the lapse of the 15th day from CFI's receipt of the resolution denying its first motion for reconsideration, making the Entry of Judgment in order. Consequently, the NLRC correctly proceeded to implement the Court of Appeals' Decision in the illegal strike case, as no temporary restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court. On the second issue: The NLRC's Decision on the illegal dismissal case was not res judicata on the illegal strike case. While the first three elements of res judicata (final judgment, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, and disposition on the merits) were present, the fourth element—identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action—was absent. Although the cases involved substantially identical parties and the subject matter of the dismissal of respondents, the causes of action were different. The cause of action for a declaration of an illegal strike is premised on a union's conduct of a strike without complying with statutory requirements, whereas the cause of action for illegal dismissal is premised on an employer's alleged dismissal of an employee without just or authorized cause. In this case, CFI filed the illegal strike case because CLUFEA members allegedly disrupted its business by staging a strike without legal compliance, while the respondents filed the illegal dismissal case to question the validity of CFI's retrenchment program. Despite the absence of res judicata, the Court acknowledged the similar subject matter (dismissal of respondents) and the potential for double compensation. To prevent this, the Court of Appeals ordered that any benefits received under the illegal dismissal case be deducted from the separation pay awarded in the illegal strike case, thus avoiding double compensation.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a supplemental motion for reconsideration, even if leave to file is granted, does not toll the 15-day period for a resolution to become final and executory. Furthermore, a decision on an illegal dismissal case does not constitute res judicata on a case for declaration of an illegal strike, as the causes of action are distinct, despite a common subject matter.