46. Club Filipino Inc. and Atty. De Leon v. Bautista et al.

(2015):

Doctrine: Notice of Strike without proposals and counter proposals is not procedurally infirm
since Rule 22, Sec. 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code only provides that the
proposals and counter proposals be attached ‘as far as practicable’.

Facts:

On May 31, 2000, petitioner Club Filipino’s CBA with Club Filipino Employees Association
(CLUFEA) was set to expire and despite several demands by the latter, Club Filipino’s Board of
Directors could not must a quorum to negotiate a new CBA. CLUFEA thus filed a request for
preventive mediation with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).

With the NCMB, the parties declared a deadlock in negotiation leading CLUFEA to file a Notice
of Strike due to the bargaining deadlock. Petitioner Club Filipino then submitted 2 proposals
with CLUFEA countering with an improved offer. With CLUFEA continuing with its strike,
Club Filipino filed a Petition to Declare Strike Illegal with the NLRC on the grounds of illegal
acts while on strike like preventing co-workers from entering and leaving work premises and
even cutting Club Filipino’s electric and water supplies and infirmities in CLUFEA’s Notice of
Strike. For its part, respondent officers of CLUFEA

The LA held that CLUFEA’s Notice of Strike failed to state its proposals to Club Filipino as well
as the latter’s counterproposals, in violation of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. With
CLUFEA’s Notice of Strike procedurally infirm, the Notice was deemed not filed and all of
CLUFEA’s officers are terminated from service. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the commission
ruled that since CLUFEA president Benjamin Bautista had already resigned from Club Filipino
and since the 3 other appellants were no longer officers of CLUFEA due to election of new
officers, the appeal was dismissed. The NLRC also grounded its denial on the letter of
CLUFEA’s new officers allegedly given to petitioners indicating that they were not interested in
appealing and the fact that CLUFEA’s former and not its current counsel signed the appeal.

The CA ruled that Bautista et al., as workers dismissed due to the LA decision had legal
personality to appeal their dismissal especially those officers not impleaded. The CA also held
that the LA gravely abused his discretion since Rule 22, Sec. 4 of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code relied upon by the LA is not absolute and even indicated that the
proposals and counter proposals be attached ‘as far as practicable’. The CA also noted that the
LA decision dismissed officers from service without even naming them and identifying the
specific acts they did. Thus, the CA ordered Club Filipino to pay full backwages to 4 officers
who had not yet resigned with separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The SC denied Club
Filipino’s Petition for Review on Certiorari as well as its MR and a subsequent Supplemental
MR.

Thereafter, Club Filipino filed several Manifestations and urgent Motions alleging double
compensation on the ground that the officers awarded of backwages and separation pay by the
SC had already received separation pay by virtue of Club Filipino’s retrenchment program
implemented with its Petition for declaration of illegal strike was pending and declared as valid
by the NLRC in a separate illegal dismissal case.

Issue/s: W/N SC erred in affirming the CA decision awarding backwages and separation pay to
terminated officers who had already received separation pay from Club Filipino’s valid
retrenchment program?

Ruling of the Court: NO. Jurisprudence has held that for termination of employment to arise
from the participation in an illegal strike, the striking employees should have knowledge that
the strike was illegal. In the instant case, even if the NLRC held that Club Filipino’s
retrenchment program was valid there is no identity between the causes of action in the
Petition for declaration of illegal strike and illegal dismissal case. Thus, the previous NLRC
ruling cannot be res judicata on the SC decision awarding backwages and separation pay to
dismissed employees and the CA, as affirmed by the SC, already provided that payments by
virtue of Club FIlipino retrenchment program shall be deducted from the award in the illegal
strike case.

Dispositive Portion: Club Filipino’s Supplemental MR is DENIED. Entry of Judgment

AFFIRMED.

Notes:

The elements of res judicata are: (FJMI)

(1) Judgment sought to bar the new action must be Final;

(2) Decision was rendered by a court having Jurisdiction over the subject matter and 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.

In the instant case, although the first 3 elements of res judicata was present and there was
identity of parties and subject matter, the causes of action of an illegal strike case differs from an
illegal dismissal case.

Digest by: Murao

--------------------------------------------------------------