RES JUDICATA BY PRIOR JUDGMENT APPLIES WHERE COMPLAINANTS FILED AN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASE BUT PREVIOUSLY FAILED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FILING OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OF SIMILAR CASE WHICH BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY

Res judicata means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.”

This doctrine applies where the complainants filed another illegal dismissal case but in a previous illegal dismissal case did not file a petition for certiorari and did not participate in the appellate proceedings which case became final and executory.

Thus, the SC held in the following case:

Danny Boy C. Monterona, et al. vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. and Giovanni Acorda
G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019

Res judicata; Subject matter; Bar by prior judgment; Conclusiveness of judgment

Facts:

In September 2003, Petitioners Danny Boy C. Monterona (Monterona), Joselito S. Alvarez (Alvarez), Ignacio S. Samson (Samson), Joey P. Ocampo (Ocampo), Role R. Demetrio (Demetrio), Elpidio P. Metre, Jr. (Metre) and their co-employees filed before the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, damages and attorney’s fees (first illegal dismissal case) against Respondents Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (Coca-Cola) and its officer, Giovanni Acorda. They alleged that they were hired by Coca-Cola on various dates from 1986 to 2003. Coca-Cola, however, terminated their employment in August 2003.

In a Decision dated August 30, 2004, the LA dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The LA ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between Coca-Cola and the complainants because the latter were hired by Genesis Manpower and General Services, Inc. (Genesis), a legitimate job contractor and it was Genesis which exercised control over the nature, extent and degree of work to be performed by the complainants.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA’s Decision. The complainants moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the NLRC.

Then, the complainants, except Monterona, et al. Monterona, Alvarez, Samson, Ocampo Demetrio and Metre, filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. Thereafter, Demetrio was ordered dropped from the case for failure to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping despite the appellate court’s order. The CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC and held that there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties. It declared that Coca-Cola, et al. failed to prove that Genesis had sufficient capital and equipment for the conduct of its business and that the complainants’ jobs as route salesmen, drivers and helpers were necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of Coca-Cola.

Acquire Mastery of HR and Labor Principles, Doctrines and Jurisprudence; Grab a bundle of HR/Labor Books by Atty. Villanueva 

When Coca-Cola, et al. moved for reconsideration, the CA denied the motion and further ruled that Monterona, et al. should not benefit from the decision because they were not impleaded in the petition for certiorari. It likewise stated that Demetrio was dropped from the case for not having signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and thus, should not also benefit from the Decision.

Thereafter, Coca-Cola, et al. filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court but it was denied for being the wrong mode of appeal and for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed Decision. The Resolution denying the appeal became final and executory on July 28, 2008.

Subsequently, on July 14, 2009, Monterona, et al. filed before the LA a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, payment of backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages and attorney’s ·fees (second illegal dismissal case) against Coca-Cola, et al.

LA Ruling:

The LA dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription and res judicata. The LA found that Monterona was dismissed from service in May 2002, Metre in February 2003, and Alvarez, Samson, Ocampo and Demetrio in August 2003; thus, four years had elapsed when they filed the case in July 2009.

The LA further opined that the second complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims could no longer be entertained on the ground of res judicata considering that the first illegal dismissal case had long attained finality.

Aggrieved, Monterona, et al. elevated an appeal to the NLRC.

NLRC Ruling:

The NLRC affirmed the ruling of the LA but only on the ground of res judicata. It held that Monterona, et al. were among the original complainants in the first illegal dismissal case and the second illegal dismissal case involved the same cause of action and relief as the first case.

Monterona, et al. moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the NLRC.

CA Ruling:

The CA dismissed the appeal on the ground of laches and estoppel.

It noted that when a petition for certiorari involving the first case was filed, Demetrio was ordered dropped from the case because he did not sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. But he did not act on it by seeking reconsideration of the court’s order. The appellate court further observed that when Monterona, et al. were excluded from the petition for certiorari because they were not impleaded as petitioners, no action was taken by any of them.

It added that if Monterona, et al. were really interested in the outcome of the first illegal dismissal case, they should have acted at the earliest opportunity, i.e., when they were declared dropped or excluded from the case. The CA likewise pronounced that Monterona, et al. did not attempt to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Monterona, et al. moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari before the SC.

Issue/s:

Whether or not there is res judicata by prior judgment on the part of complainants who did not file a petition for certiorari and did not participate in the appellate proceeding unlike other complainants, and the case became final and executory

SC Ruling:

The SC did not find merit in the petition.

Res judicata means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.” It lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit.

The doctrine of res judicata embodied in Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Rule embraces two concepts of res judicata: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b); and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c).

Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation differentiated between the two rules of res judicata:

There is “bar by prior judgment” when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or any other tribunal.

But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as “conclusiveness of judgment.” Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.

The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a “bar by prior judgment” would apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata as “conclusiveness of judgment” applies.

The Court found that the subject case satisfies all the requisites of res judicata under the first concept of bar by prior judgment. The first illegal dismissal case, which was decided in favor of Monterona, et al.’s co-employees, attained finality on July 28, 2008. As regards Monterona, et al., the case became final when they failed to file a petition for certiorari before the CA to assail the NLRC Decision. With respect to Demetrio, the case attained finality when he failed to comply with the order of the CA to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. It must be emphasized that failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with any order of the court will result in dismissal which shall have the effect of an adjudication on the merits.

It is likewise beyond dispute that the judgment on the first illegal dismissal case has been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as over the parties and it was a judgment on the merits. Further, there can be no question as to the identity of the parties. Monterona, et al. were among the complainants in the first illegal dismissal case which was instituted against the same Coca-Cola, et al.

The subject matters and causes of action of the two cases are also identical. A subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute.

In the case at bar, both the first and second actions involve Monterona, et al.’s right to security of tenure. In Yap vs. Chua, the Court held that the test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence would support both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would support both actions, then they are considered the same; and a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the subsequent action.

Here, the two cases involve the same cause of action, i.e., Coca-Cola, et al.’s act of terminating Monterona, et al.’s employment. The facts in the two cases are identical and Monterona, et al. presented the same evidence to prove their claims in both cases.