Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81230:gr-197003-2013&catid=1567&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:26:52+00:00

Document:
NERIE C. SERRANO, Petitioner, v.AMBASSADOR HOTEL, INC. and YOLANDA CHAN, Respondent.
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing and seeking to set aside the Decision 1 and Resolution2 dated March 26, 2010 and May I9, 20 II, respectively, of the Court of Appeals ( CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100612, affirming with modification the May 24, 2007 Resolution3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Third Division, in NLRC Case No. 040480-04 (NCR Case No. 00-04-04580-03 ).
Petitioner Serrano and respondents AHI and Chan interposed separate petitions for certiorari assailing the NLRC Decision, after their respective motions for reconsideration were denied.24 At the CA, Serranos petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100569, entitled Nerie Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division), Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and Yolanda Chan, was raffled to the CAs Special Eighth (8th) Division, while that of respondents AHI and Chans, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100612, entitled Ambassador Hotel, Inc. and Yolanda Chan in her capacity as President of Ambassador Hotel, Inc. v. NLRC and Nerie C. Serrano, went to the CAs Special Fourth (4th) Division.
In its March 17, 2010 Resolution,32 the Court denied with finality respondents Chan and AHIs motion for reconsideration.33 On May 14, 2010, the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 189313 became final and executory,34 thereby effectively reinstating with finality the Decision of the labor arbiter.
Meanwhile, in their petition for certiorari under consideration by the appellate courts Special 4th Division, respondents AHI and Chan argued against Serranos entitlement to any monetary award and, thus, faulted the NLRC for granting her the reduced amount of PhP 324,680.40.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied, she now comes to this Court via the instant petition praying, in the main, that the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 100612 of the Special 4th Division be declared without legal effect for effectively contradicting a final and executory Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 189313.
First, the parties in both G.R. No. 189313 and CA-G.R. SP No. 100612, which is the subject of Our present review, are petitioner Serrano and respondents Chan and AHI.
Second, G.R. No. 189313 and CA-G.R. SP No. 100612 both deal with the same subject matter: Serranos entitlement to monetary benefits under the pertinent labor laws as an employee of respondents AHI and Chan.
The Court has observed that in some instances, two separate petitions brought before it arose from two (2) conflicting decisions rendered by two (2) divisions of the CA when said decisions arose from one case or actually involve the same parties and cause of action or common questions of facts or law. This is a bane to the efficient, effective and expeditious administration of justice which should be addressed at the earliest possible time.
Sec. 3. Consolidation of Cases.When related cases are assigned to different Justices, they shall be consolidated and assigned to one Justice.
(a) Upon motion of a party with notice to the other party/ies, or at the instance of the Justice to whom any of the related cases is assigned, upon notice to the parties, consolidation shall ensue when the cases involve the same parties and/or related questions of fact and/or law.
(4) To whom the civil case is assigned, or to whom the civil case with the lowest docket number is assigned, if the cases involved are civil and special.
While Sec. 3(a) above appears to be a sound rule, perhaps a better and more effective system can be set up to preclude the recurrence of conflicting decisions involving the same case or parties and cause of action emanating from two CA divisions. It is suggested that the CA consider the procedure in this Court that the duty to determine whether consolidation is necessary or mandatory falls on the shoulders of the Clerk of Court (COC) and the Division Clerks of Courts. Rather than rely on the interested party to register a motion to consolidate or the Justice to whom the case is assigned, it is best that it should be the Clerk of Court and the Division Clerks of Court of the CA who should be responsible for the review and consolidation of similarly intertwined cases. The rollos of cases are initially transmitted to them for verification of the requirements of the petition, more particularly the certification against forum shopping where parties state the pendency of related cases and are in a better position to identify and determine if consolidation of cases is proper. Once there exists two related cases, the Division Clerk of Courts shall immediately inform the COC of such fact. The COC, in turn, shall posthaste inform the two Justices of the need for consolidation and that said cases shall be referred to the Justice who was assigned the lower numbered case. This will hopefully prevent a Division from deciding a case which has already been decided by another division.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the Decision and Resolution dated March 26, 2010 and May 19, 2011, respectively, of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 100612. The CA is ordered to adopt immediately a more effective system in its Internal Rules to avoid two (2) divisions independently and separately deciding two (2) cases which originated from a case decided by a court a quo or which involved the same parties and cause of action oc common questions of law or facts to prevent the rendition of conflicting decisions by two divisions which should otherwise have been consolidated in the first place.
1 Rollo. pp. 60-69. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Ramon R. Garcia.
3 Id. at 39-46. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and concurred in b) Commissioners Tito F. Genilo and Gregorio 0. Bilog III.
6 Id. at 10. 40.
15 Id. at 11, 42.
25 Id. at 50-56. Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan Castillo and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
26 Id. at 54-55; citing G&M (Phil.), Inc. v. Batomalaque, G.R. No. 151849, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 111, 118.
29 Rollo (G.R. No. 189313), pp. 14-51.
34 Id. at 324; rollo, p. 59.
38 Rollo (G.R. No. 189313), p. 303.
40 Taganas v. Emulsan, G.R. No. 146980, September 2, 2003, 410 SCRA 237, 241-242.
41 Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, G.R. No. 149624, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 471, 480; Hacienda Bigaa, Inc. v. Chavez, G.R. No. 174160, April 20, 2010, 618 SCRA 559, 576-577; Agustin v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 168139, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 576, 585; Chris Garments Corporation v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 167426, January 12, 2009, 576 SCRA 13, 21-22; Heirs of Abadilla v. Galarosa, 527 Phil. 264, 277 (2006).
42 See Tiongson v. Court of Appeals, No. L-35059, February 27, 1973, 49 SCRA 429, 434.
43 Ramos v. Ramos, 447 Phil. 114, 119 (2003).
44 G.R. No. 136228, January 30, 2001, 350 SCRA 568, 578.
45 See Montemayor v. Millora, G.R. No. 168251, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 580, 587-588; citing Bongcac v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 156687-88, May 21, 2009, 588 SCRA 64, 71. See also Land Bank of the Philippines v. Arceo, G.R. No. 158270, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 85, 94-95.
46 Marcelo Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, No. L-35851, October 8, 1974, 60 SCRA 167, 171.
47 Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Gernale, G.R. No. 163344, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 67, 78.
48 Id. at 84; see also People v. Antonio, 339 Phil. 519 (1997); Active Wood Products Co. v. CA, 260 Phil. 825, 828-829 (1990).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.