Rodriguez v. San Roque Metals

MARQUEZ, J.:

This controversy should have been long settled with the Court's final and executory ruling in SR Metals, Inc. v. Adiong 1 (docketed as G.R. No. 226574). In that case, the Court expressly stated that no relief could be granted to respondent San Roque Metals, Inc. (SRMI) in relation to certain compromise agreements SRMI had executed with petitioners Orlando Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and Daryl Rama (Rama). Unbeknownst to the Court, however, while G.R. No. 226574 was pending, SRMI also raised the existence of these agreements before the labor tribunals and Court of Appeals during the ongoing execution proceedings, committing willful and deliberate forum shopping that resulted in conflicting rulings and unjustly delayed satisfaction of the judicially approved claims of Rodriguez and Rama.

The Court will not countenance such tactics. With this Decision, the Court settles the dispute with finality, leaving only the matter of the forum shopping committed by SRMI and its counsel to be settled. Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 dated December 19, 2020 filed by Rodriguez and Rama, assailing the Decision3 and Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA).

The assailed Decision granted the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by SRMI and reversed and set aside the Resolutions5 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC had earlier denied the Petition for Extraordinary Remedies6 filed by SRMI, affirmed the June 30, 2017 Order7 of Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) Exequiel M. Dayot III (Dayot), and denied reconsideration. SRMI filed its Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari 8 on October 14, 2021.

Rodriguez and Rama, together with three other complainants, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SRMI on March 30, 2011.9 In a Decision10 dated January 24, 2012, ELA Henry F. Te dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal but ordered SRMI to pay Rodriguez, Rama, and Jeffrey Adiong certain sums corresponding to their 13th month pay and service incentive leave.11 Rama then executed a Quitclaim and Release with Motion to Dismiss12 (Quitclaim) dated March 12, 2012. In consideration of the amount of PHP 20,000.00, Rama waived any claim or right of action against SRMI.13 The other complainants executed similar documents.14 On March 27, 2012, SRMI filed a Memorandum of Partial Appeal with the NLRC.15 Rodriguez and Rama, with the other complainants, also filed a Memorandum of Appeal.16 In a Resolution17 dated December 28, 2012, the NLRC dismissed SRMI's partial appeal and partly granted the appeal of Adiong, Rodriguez, and Rama, declaring them regular employees of SRMI and ordering SRMI to pay them backwages plus allowances and other benefits.18 This award was without prejudice to the crediting of the sum of PHP 20,000.00 that Rama had received from SRMI pursuant to the Quitclaim, which the NLRC declared invalid.

19 The NLRC denied SRMI's motion for reconsideration in its Resolution20 dated March 27, 2013.21 SRMI filed a petition for certiorari 22 with the CA, seeking the nullification of the NLRC's Resolutions.23 This petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 05614-MIN. After SRMI filed its petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No.

05614-MIN, it entered into separate Compromise Agreements with Rodriguez and Rama dated February 3, 201524 and April 22, 2015,25 respectively.26 These Agreements were also acknowledged by ELA Dayot.27 The CA dismissed the petition in its June 24, 2015 Decision.28 On June 30, 2015, SRMI filed a Manifestation (With Prayer for Dismissal) informing the CA that it had entered into a Compromise Agreement with Rodriguez.29 On August 20, 2015, SRMI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied.30 On September 9, 2016, SRMI filed a petition for review on certiorari 31 with the Court, arguing, among others, that the CA erred in disregarding the Quitclaim executed by Rama and the Compromise Agreement signed by Rodriguez.32 This petition was docketed as G.R. No. 226574. In a Resolution33 dated October 19, 2016, the Court denied SRMI's petition for review on certiorari for having been filed beyond the reglementary period of 15 days under Rule 45, Section 2, in relation to Rule 56, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court.34 SRMI filed a Manifestation (With Prayer for Dismissal of Claims of Respondents by Reason of Execution of Valid Compromise Agreements)35 dated February 24, 2017, praying for the dismissal of Rodriguez and Rama's complaints with finality in view of the Compromise Agreements.36 SRMI then filed a motion for reconsideration37 dated March 27, 2017, arguing that its petition for review was filed within the extended period prayed for in its two motions for extension of time to file a petition for review.

In a Resolution38 dated June 28, 2017, the Court noted and granted SRMI's Manifestation and the withdrawal of appearance of SRMI's previous counsel. The Court also ordered Rodriguez and Rama to comment on SRMI's motion for reconsideration of its October 19, 2016 Resolution. In compliance with the Court's Resolution, Rodriguez and Rama filed Respondents' Partial Motion for Reconsideration with Comment/Opposition to the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.39 SRMI then filed a Comment (To the Respondents' Partial Motion for Reconsideration with Comment/Opposition to the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration),40 again arguing that its liability to Rodriguez and Rama was fully settled with the execution of the Compromise Agreements.41 In response, Rodriguez and Rama filed a Reply to the Petitioner's Comment.42 The Court denied SRMI's motion for reconsideration in its Resolution43 dated June 3, 2019.

It also noted without action SRMI's Manifestation (with Prayer for Dismissal of Claims of Respondents by Reason of Execution of Valid Compromise Agreements) dated February 24, 2017, explaining as follows: The respondents submit that the amounts received by Rama and Rodriguez served only as partial payments and should not be deemed as full satisfaction for their monetary claims. The Court finds these issues were the subject matter of the Labor Arbiter's order dated June 30, 2017 and the NLRC's resolution dated March 9, 2018. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC deemed the amounts paid under the compromise agreements as advance or partial payments of respondents' total monetary claims.

Considering the foregoing, and given the denial of the instant petition for review on certiorari,no relief can be granted to the petitioner in relation to said compromise agreements. 44 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In the meantime, Rodriguez and Rama, with three other complainants, filed a Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Execution with Prayer for Recomputation of the Judgment Award from the Time the Complainants were Illegally Dismissed from Employment up to the Payment of their Backwages and Separation Pay with the NLRC-RAB XIII, Butuan City.45 Rodriguez and Rama sought the execution of the NLRC's judgment awards, as affirmed by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 05614-MIN.46 On June 30, 2017, the NLRC-RAB XIII, through ELA Dayot, issued an Order47 disposing of Rodriguez and Rama's motion as follows:

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, respondent SR METALS INC. is hereby ORDERED to pay the complainants their monetary awards as computed, to wit: 1. JEFFREY ADIONG [PHP] 390,214.15 2. ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ 235,046.02 3. DARYL RAMA 398,786.31