4. Integración en jSDN
4.2. Herramientas de análisis
vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA and PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC.
FACTS:
United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union, UPSU, is a union consisting of supervisory employees. On March 20, 1995, UPSU filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. Said petition was however denied by the med-arbiter and on appeal to the Secretary of Labor. The ground was that the route managers were managerial employees and therefore not eligible for union membership under Art. 245 of the Labor Code.
Petitioner challenged the questioned orders but was dismissed by the Third Division of the Court for lack of showing that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, pressing for resolution its contention that the first sentence of Art.
245 of the Labor Code, so far as it declares managerial employees to be ineligible to form, assist or join unions, contravenes Art. III, §8 of the Constitution which provides: “The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.”
For this reason, the petition was referred to the Court en banc.
It appears, however, that the subject of the case at bar was the same subject of two previous determinations by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The first was in Worker's Alliance Trade Union (WATU) v. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., where the Secretary of Labor found that only those employees occupying the position of route manager and accounting manager are managerial employees. The findings were reiterated in In Re: Petition for Direct Certification and/or Certification Election-Route Managers/Supervisory Employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Phils. Inc.
ISSUE:
Whether or not previous administrative determinations on the question whether route managers are managerial employees constitute res judicata over the case at bar.
HELD:
Petition is DISMISSED.
Petitioner relies in the Court’s ruling in Nasipit Lumber Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission in submitting its argument that these previous administrative determinations do not have the effect of res judicata in this case, because "labor relations proceedings" are "non-litigious and summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities."
The said case involved a clearance to dismiss an employee issued by the Department of Labor. The requirement of a clearance to terminate employment was a creation of the Department of labor to carry out the Labor Code provisions on security of tenure and termination of employment.
The question in that case was whether in a subsequent proceeding for illegal dismissal, the clearance was res judicata. In holding it was not, the Court made it clear that it was referring to labor relations proceedings of a non-adversary character. The Court clarified at the end of its opinion that "the doctrine of res judicata applies . . . to judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative powers.”
SEGUBIENSE, RENATO L. Jr.
Group 1
HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF BUKIDNON vs. HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
289 SCRA 624 FACTS:
The strikers protested the March 29, 1996 Decision of the Office of the President (OP), issued through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, which approved the conversion of a one hundred forty-four (144)-hectare land from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional area.
This led the Office of the President, through then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, to issue the so-called “Win-Win” Resolution on November 7, 1997, substantially modifying its earlier Decision after it had already become final and executory. The said Resolution modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial area only to the extent of forty-four (44) hectares, and ordered the remaining one hundred (100) hectares to be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
This case involves a 144-hectare land, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr.
Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners. In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), a multinational corporation, for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower’s Agreement. The lease expired in April, 1994.
In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition. NQSRMDC resisted the DAR’s action. In February, 1992, it sought and was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction.
Despite the DARAB order, the DAR Regional Director issued a memorandum, dated directing the Land Bank to open a trust account in the name of NQSRMDC and to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just compensation of the subject property. NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed on June 9, 1992 an Omnibus Motion to enforce the DARAB order of March 31, 1992 and to nullify the summary proceedings undertaken by the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank on the valuation of the subject property.
The DARAB, acted favorably on the Omnibus Motion by (a) ordering the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank “to seriously comply with the terms of the order dated (b) nullifying the DAR Regional Director’s memorandum and the summary proceedings conducted pursuant thereto; and (c) directing the Land Bank “to return the claim folder of Petitioner NQSRMDC’s subject property to the DAR until further orders.
In the meantime, Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6dated, designating certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the subject property is situated.
On November 14, 1994, the DAR, thru Secretary Garilao, issued an Order denying the instant application for the conversion of the subject land from agricultural to agro-industrial and, instead, placed the same under the compulsory coverage of CARP.
Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon appealed the order of denial to the Office of the President and prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the subject land as the same would be more beneficial to the people of Bukidnon.
On June 29, 1995, filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction.In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision approving the application of the petitioners.
Thereafter DAR filed a motion for reconsideration of the OP decision.
NQSRMDC filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for annulment and cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR and 141
others. The RTC then issued a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, restraining the DAR and 141 others from entering, occupying and/or wresting from NQSRMDC the possession of the subject land.
On June 23, 1997, an Order was issued by then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres denying DAR’s motion for reconsideration for having been filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. The said order further declared that the March 29, 1996 OP decision had already become final and executory. The DAR filed on July 11, 1997 a second motion for reconsideration of the June 23, 1997 Order of the President.
On August 12, 1997, the said writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC was challenged by some alleged farmers before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying for the lifting of the injunction and for the issuance of a writ of prohibition from further trying the RTC case. On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began their hunger strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon City to protest the OP Decision of March 29, 1996. On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the strikers’ protest by issuing the so-called “Win/Win” Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona.
A copy of the “Win-Win” Resolution was received by Governor Carlos O. Fortich and NQSRMDC and they filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona and DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao.
A Motion For Leave To Intervene was filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries, through counsel, claiming that they are real parties in interest.
In seeking the nullification of the “Win-Win” Resolution, the petitioners claim that the Office of the President come up purely political decision to appease the ‘farmers,’ by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997. Petitioners further allege, respondent then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona “committed grave abuse of discretion and acted beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questioned Resolution of 7 November 1997.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the doctrine of Res Judicata applies in the case at bar.
HELD:
The supreme court ruled that the acts of the petitioner does not constitute forum shopping, explaining that “there is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigation commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. This specially so, as in this case, where the court in which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction. Furthermore the court explained that the test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping is where elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgement in one case will amount to res judicata in the other, which are absent in the case at bar.
PASCUAL, JERICHO M.
Group 1
MONTEMAYOR vs. CA 405 SCRA 264 FACTS:
Petitioner EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated April 18, 2001, affirming the decision of the Office of the President in Administrative Order No. 12 ordering petitioner’s dismissal as Regional Director of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for unexplained wealth.
Petitioner’s dismissal originated from an unverified letter-complaint, Private respondent accused petitioner, then OIC-Regional Director, Region III, of the DPWH, of accumulating unexplained wealth, in violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019. Private respondent charged that in 1993, petitioner and his wife purchased a house and lot at 907 North Bel Aire Drive, Burbank, Los Angeles, California, making a down payment of US$100,000.00. He further alleged that petitioner’s in-laws who were living in California had a poor credit standing due to a number of debts and they could not have purchased such an expensive property for petitioner and his wife. Private respondent accused petitioner of amassing wealth from lahar funds and other public works projects.
Petitioner likewise pointed out that the charge against him was the subject of similar cases filed before the Ombudsman. He attached to his counter-affidavit the Consolidated Investigation Report of the Ombudsman dismissing similar charges for insufficiency of evidence.
After the investigation, the PCAGC, in its Report to the Office of the President, made the following findings: The PCAGC concluded that the petitioner could not have been able to afford to buy the property on his annual income of P168,648.00 in 1993 as appearing on his Service Record. It likewise found petitioner’s explanation as unusual, largely unsubstantiated, unbelievable and self-serving. The PCAGC noted that instead of adducing evidence, petitioner’s counsel exerted more effort in filing pleadings and motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping. It also took against petitioner his refusal to submit his SALN and ITR despite the undertaking made by his counsel which raised the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. The PCAGC concluded that as petitioner’s acquisition of the subject property was manifestly out of proportion to his salary, it has been unlawfully acquired.
Thus, it recommended petitioner’s dismissal from service pursuant to Section 8 of R.A. No. 3019.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. His appeal to the Court of Appeals was likewise dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether the earlier dismissal of similar cases before the Ombudsman rendered the administrative case before the PCAGC moot and academic.
HELD:
The Court cannot sustain petitioner’s stance that the dismissal of similar charges against him before the Ombudsman rendered the administrative case against him before the PCAGC moot and academic. To be sure, the decision of the Ombudsman does not operate as res judicata in the PCAGC case subject of this review. The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative powers. Petitioner was investigated by the Ombudsman for his possible criminal liability for the acquisition of the Burbank property in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. For the same alleged misconduct, petitioner, as a presidential appointee, was investigated by the PCAGC by virtue of the administrative power and control of the President over him. As the PCAGC’s investigation of petitioner was administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no application in the case at bar.