SECOND DIVISION
S.L.
TEVES, INC./HACIENDA G.R.
No. 172890
NUESTRA
SENORA
AND/OR
RICARDO M. TEVES, Present:
As
President AND VICENTE M.
TEVES,
as General Manager QUISUMBING,
J.,
Petitioners, Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
- versus - VELASCO,
JR., and
BRION,
JJ.
CASIANO
ERAN, Promulgated:
Respondent.
April
30, 2008
x
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
Petitioners
filed the present Petition for Review[1]
dated
The
facts, as culled from the record in the assailed Decision, follow:
The
petitioner started working as laborer since 1978, and was paid P53.00
per day, paid every fifteen (15) days, with a daily work schedule of [sic] from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.[,] from Monday to Saturday. His work consists of preparing/clearing
and weeding the sugar plantation fields for planting, “CARGA” and
“TAPAS,” gathering/harvesting and hauling sugar canes, within the
sugar plantation, under the direct control and supervision of the “cabo.” Sometime in the morning of
On
the other hand, the private respondents alleged that the petitioner was
employed in Hacienda Cambuilao in P175.00) Pesos
to the petitioner herein, the latter withdrew the complaint against them, which
prompted the Labor Arbiter to issue an Order dismissing the case with
prejudice.
To
sum it all, this case began on
According
to the Court of Appeals, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
committed grave abuse of discretion when it agreed with the Labor
Arbiter’s finding that respondent’s voluntary withdrawal of his
previous complaint for illegal dismissal resulted in the dismissal of his suit
“with prejudice” such that respondent can no longer file another
complaint with the same cause of action against petitioners.
Petitioners
argue that the Order[5] of
the Labor Arbiter dated
In
his Comment[6] dated
Petitioners
filed a Reply[7] dated
It
is at once evident that the parties in this case present two conflicting sides
regarding the circumstances surrounding respondent’s employment and termination.
Petitioners
vigorously insist that respondent had previously admitted having worked at
petitioners’ hacienda without their knowledge and consent. This assertion, however, appears to be
unsupported by any evidence on record, except petitioners’ own Position
Paper[8]
submitted before the NLRC.
The
Receipt dated March 18, 2002, which petitioners submit as proof that respondent
decided to withdraw the first illegal dismissal complaint on the condition that
he be paid the amount of P175.00 equivalent to four (4) days’ work
proves just that and nothing more—that respondent received remuneration
for his work. It does not indicate,
much less prove, that respondent admitted having
voluntarily worked at
petitioners’ hacienda without
petitioners’ knowledge and consent or that he voluntarily agreed to
withdraw his complaint.[9]
The
Order dated
In
order for res judicata to apply, however, the following requisites must
concur: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the
parties; (c) it must be a judgment on
the merits; and, (d) there must be as between the first and second actions
identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[12] Whether the first complaint for illegal
dismissal was dismissed on the merits depends, in turn, on the voluntariness of
respondent’s withdrawal of his first complaint and on the truth or
falsity of the allegation that respondent admitted that he was not really an
employee of petitioners. These
questions require an inquiry into the facts, a function which this Court does
not exercise in an appeal by certiorari.
Under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which governs appeals by certiorari, only
questions of law may be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of
facts. A question of law which the
Court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of
the evidence presented by the litigants. There is a question of law in a given
case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises
as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[13]
All
of these notwithstanding, the Court of Appeals had ruled that respondent is a regular
employee of petitioners; that he was illegally dismissed; and is, thus,
entitled to reinstatement and to his monetary claims. We find these factual findings and
conclusions in accord with the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE,
the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE
O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[2]
[9]
RECEIPT
Received the
amount of P175.00 from HDA.
Signed
CASIANO
COMPLAINANT
With my consent:
Signed
CONSING
MOTHER