Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/56205
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 03:11:23+00:00

Document:
HERNANDO BORRA, JOHN PACHEO, DANILO PEREZ, FELIZARDO SIMON, RAMON BUENACOSA, JR., FELIX BELADOR, WILFREDO LUPO, RONALD VILLARIAS, ARSENIO MINDANAO, MAX NONALA, SIMPLICIO DE ERIT, NOEL DONGUINES, JULIO BORRA, MELCHOR JAVIER, JOHNNY ENRICO VARGAS, PAQUITO SONDIA, JOSE SALAJOG, ELMER LUPO, RAZUL ARANEZ, NELSON PEREZ, BALBINO ABLAY, FERNANDO SIMON, JIMMY VILLARTA, ROMEO CAINDOC, SALVADOR SANTILLAN, ROMONEL JANEO, ERNESTO GONZALUDO, JOSE PAJES, ROY TAN, FERNANDO SANTILLAN JR., DEMETRIO SEMILLA, RENE CORDERO, EDUARDO MOLENO, ROMY DINAGA, HERNANDO GUMBAN, FEDERICO ALVARICO, ELMER CATO, ROGELIO CORDERO, RODNEY PAJES, ERNIE BAYER, ARMANDO TABARES, NOLI AMADOR, MARIO SANTILLAN, ALANIL TRASMONTE, VICTOR ORTEGA, JOEVING ROQUERO, CYRUS PINAS, DANILO PERALES, AND ALFONSO COSAS, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS SECOND AND NINETEENTH DIVISIONS AND HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.
Before the Court is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the nullification of the November 14, 2003 Resolution, as well as the subsequent Decision and Resolution, dated June 22, 2004 and January 14, 2005, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 78729. The November 14, 2003 Resolution granted private respondent's motion for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction. The assailed CA Decision, on the other hand, set aside the Order of the Labor Arbiter, dated August 12, 2003, and dismissed RAB Case No. 09-10698-97, while the January 14, 2005 CA Resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
On October 16, 1997, private respondent filed a Motion to Consolidate the abovementioned cases, but the Labor Arbiter in charge of the case denied the said Motion in its Order dated October 20, 1997.
On January 9, 1998, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 on the ground of res judicata. Private respondent cited an earlier decided case entitled “Humphrey Perez, et al. v. Hawaiian Philippine Co. et al.” (Perez case) and docketed as RAB Case No. 06-04-10169-95, which was an action for recovery of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, and it includes herein petitioners among the complainants and herein private respondent and one Jose Castillon (Castillon) as respondents. Private respondent contended that the Perez case, which has already become final and executory, as no appeal was taken therefrom, serves as a bar to the litigation of RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97, because it was ruled therein that petitioners are not employees of private respondent but of Castillon.
In an Order dated July 9, 1998, the Labor Arbiter granted private respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC which set aside the Order of the Labor Arbiter, reinstated the complaint in RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 and remanded the same for further proceedings.
It is premature to conclude that the evidence in Perez would determine the outcome of the case at bench because as earlier pointed out, there is still no showing that the contractor (Fela contractor) in this case can be considered as on the same footing as the previous contractor (Castillon). Such factual issue is crucial in determining whether petitioner is the real employer of private respondents.
We, thus resolve to dismiss the complaint against respondent Hawaiian, who as we have found in an earlier pronouncement has no employer-employee relations with the complainant, let alone, any privity of relationship, except for the fact that it is the depository of sugar where the sugar of the planters and traders are hauled by the workers of the contractor, like respondent herein Fela Contractor/Jardinico.
No appeal was taken from the abovequoted Decision. Thus, the same became final and executory.
As a consequence of the finality of the Decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, herein private respondent again filed a Motion to Dismiss RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 on the ground, among others, of res judicata. Private respondent contended that the final and executory Decision of the Labor Arbiter in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, which found no employer-employee relations between private respondent and petitioners, serves as a bar to the further litigation of RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97.
On August 12, 2003, the Labor Arbiter handling RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 issued an Order denying private respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated January 14, 2005.
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE SECOND PETITION OF HPCO DESPITE THE CLEAR AND ESTABLISHED FACT ON RECORD THAT HPCO HAD SIMULTANEOUSLY AND SUCCESSIVELY FILED AN (sic) IDENTICAL THREE (3) MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN THE SALA OF LABOR ARBITERS AND TWO (2) PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IN THE COURT OF APPEALS WHICH IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION ON THE LAW OF FORUM SHOPPING.
It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and it is not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside.
SECTION 3. MOTION TO DISMISS. - On or before the date set for the conference, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss. Any motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment, prescription or forum shopping, shall be immediately resolved by the Labor Arbiter by a written order. An order denying the motion to dismiss or suspending its resolution until the final determination of the case is not appealable.
x x x The NLRC rule proscribing appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss is similar to the general rule observed in civil procedure that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and, hence, not appealable until final judgment or order is rendered. The remedy of the aggrieved party in case of denial of the motion to dismiss is to file an answer and interpose, as a defense or defenses, the ground or grounds relied upon in the motion to dismiss, proceed to trial and, in case of adverse judgment, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due course. In order to avail of the extraordinary writ of certiorari, it is incumbent upon petitioner to establish that the denial of the motion to dismiss was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
In this regard, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which is applied in a suppletory character to cases covered by the NLRC Rules, provides that in all the instances enumerated under the said Rule, where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, this Court has held that when the denial of a motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be justified. On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear that the CA has jurisdiction over the special civil action for certiorari filed by private respondent as the latter was able to allege and establish that the denial of its motion to dismiss was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners are wrong to argue that this Court's directive in G.R. No. 151801 to remand RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings deprives the CA of its jurisdiction over private respondent's petition for certiorari. The essence of this Court's ruling in G.R. No. 151801 is simply to require resolution of the factual issue of whether or not Fela Contractor has stepped into the shoes of Castillon and, thus, has taken petitioners in its employ. In other words, this Court called for a prior determination as to who is the real employer of petitioners. This issue, however, was already settled as will be discussed below.
Stated differently, conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.
More particularly, the elements of forum-shopping are: (a) identity of parties or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; (c) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
3. That in light of the fact that the question as to whether or not there exists employer-employee relations as between complainants [herein petitioners] and herein respondent HPCO will indispensably have to be resolved in light of the presence of an independent contractor (FELA Contractors) in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 - which should otherwise be determinative of the issue involved in the present suit – it should only be logical and proper that for purposes of abating separate and inconsistent verdicts by two distinct arbitration salas of this Commission that the present suit be accordingly consolidated for joint hearing and resolution with said RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 x x x.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision and Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78729 are AFFIRMED.
 Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now CA Presiding Justice), with Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Regalado E. Maambong, concurring; Annex “D” to Petition, rollo, pp. 100-103.
 Penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale, with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; Annex “E” to Petition, rollo, pp. 104-113.
 Annex “F” to Petition, rollo, pp. 114-115.
 Records, Vol. I, pp. 16-17.
 See NLRC Decision dated November 25, 1999, records, Vol. I, pp. 253-259.
 See Hawaiian Philippine Company v. Borra, G.R. No. 151801, November 12, 2002, 391 SCRA 453, 455-456.
 Annex “H” to private respondent's Comment, rollo, pp. 393-408.
 See NLRC Certification dated January 11, 2000, Annex “H-1” to private respondent's Comment, rollo, p. 409.
 Records, Vol. I, pp. 661-671.
 Records, Vol. II, pp. 1005-1007.
 Machado v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 546, 559; La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78, 90.
 See Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 1, last paragraph.
 NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 328, 337; Lim v. Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station, G.R. No. 192615, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 705, 710.
 G.R. No. 149624, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 471.
 G.R. Nos. 171736 and 181482, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 284.

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