IN SEPTEMBER 2003, petitioners Danny Boy C. Monterona, Joselito S. Alvarez, Ignacio S. Samson, Joey P. Ocampo, Role R. Demetrio, Elpidio P. Metre, Jr., and their co-employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, damages and attorney’s fees against respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision finding no employer-employee relationship existed between Coca-Cola and the petitioners.
Petitioners, except Monterona, Alvarez, Samson, Ocampo, Demetrio and Metre, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). Subsequently, Demetrio was ordered dropped from the case for failure to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
The CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC and found the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. It further ruled that petitioners Monterona, Alvarez, Samson, Ocampo, and Metre, should not benefit from the decision because they were not impleaded as petitioners 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.
Respondents 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.
On July 14, 2009, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages and attorney’s fees against respondents. They argued that res judicata is not applicable because the decision on the first illegal dismissal case could not be considered as judgment on the merits as it merely dropped them as parties on the basis of failure to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
Does this argument find merit?
Ruling: No.
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.
x x x
The Court finds 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 petitioners’ co-employees, attained finality on July 28, 2008. With regard to petitioners Monterona, Alvarez, Samson, Ocampo and Metre, the case became final when they failed to file a petition for certiorari before the CA to assail the NLRC decision. With respect to petitioner 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. Petitioners were among the complainants in the first illegal dismissal case which was instituted against the same respondents.
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 petitioners’ right to security of tenure.
Meanwhile, Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as “the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.” In Yap v. 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., respondents’ act of terminating petitioners’ employment. The facts in the two cases are identical and petitioners presented the same evidence to prove their claims in both cases. (Danny Boy C. Monterona et al. vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc., G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019).