BANDILLON, ET AL. vs. LA FILIPINA UYGONGCO CORPORATION (LFUC) directing LFUC to pay Php3,345,657.94, or Php88,043.

5,657.94, or Php88,043.63 for each of the employees in

G.R. No. 202446, September 16, 2015 differentials on wages, holiday pay, rest day pay and overtime pay, on compliance with
DOLE Secretary's Order.
DOCTRINE:
(Weight of Osec, LA, NLRC, CA Decisions) Except when there are cogent reasons, this Court 7. DOLE Region VI then issued a Writ of Execution. But LFUC filed petition for certiorari
will not alter, modify or reverse the factual findings of the Secretary of Labor (or her and injunction with the CA on the grounds that: (1) the same was immediately issued
subordinates) because, by reason of her official position, she is considered to have without first issuing a "compliance order" which is provided for in Section 18 of Rule II of
acquired expertise as her jurisdiction is confined to specific matters. We have no reason to the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standard Contests; and (2) grave abuse was
depart from the presumption that the labor officials performed their official duties in a committed by the Regional Director in denying LFUC's motion to recall the writ.
regular manner, absent any evidence from respondent that this was not the case.
Therefore, as between the bare conclusions of the appellate court, and the findings of the 8. Apparently, LFUC was not yet served with the Order of the DOLE-VI Regional Director
labor offices, which are supported by substantial evidence, we are inclined to uphold the when it filed the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Subsequently,
latter. however, LFUC was served a copy of the Order. Thus, LFUC filed with DOLE Region VI a MR
(treated as an Appeal) wherein it called the said order a "Compliance Order" that was
FACTS: allegedly issued in grave abuse of discretion for it deprived LFUC of its right to due process
since the latter was not given the opportunity to adduce evidence to refute the workers'
1. Petitioners Bandillion (employees) are truck drivers and employees of respondent La
allegations, specifically the latter's monetary claims. It alleged that the employees were
Filipina Uygongco Corporation (LFUC).
piece-rate truck drivers and, thus, were not entitled to overtime, holiday and rest day pay
2. They filed a complaint for violation of labor standard laws against the latter before the as well as wage differentials, and that some already had executed waivers and quitclaims.
DOLE Region VI. Upon inspection, a finding of "no violation" was made by the Labor MR denied.
Enforcement Officer, a finding that was upheld on appeal to the DOLE-VI Regional
9. Meanwhile, the petition before the CA was duly opposed by the employees as well as
Director.
by the DOLE-VI Regional Director, who alleged that the petition had been rendered moot
3. The employees filed an appeal with the Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE and academic by LFUC's filing of a motion for reconsideration of the Order.
Secretary). Dole Secretary overturned the order, held LFUC liable for underpayment of
10. The DOLE issued an Entry of Judgment, stating that the Resolution had become final
wages, non-payment of holiday pay, rest day pay, and overtime pay and remanded the
and executory and thereby was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
case to the DOLE-Regional Office VI for the appropriate computation of the workers'
Thereafter, the DOLE-VI Regional Director-Officer-in-Charge (OIC) issued another Writ of
individual entitlements.
Execution.
4. LFUC filed MR – denied. Hence, they filed petition for certiorari with CA – denied. MR
11. Meanwhile, on July 8, 2011, the CA issued a Resolution denying LFUC's application for
with CA – denied.
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and submitting the case for decision. It REMANDED
5. LFUC filed petition for certiorari with SC. the case to the DOLE Regional Director for reception of evidence and recomputation of
monetary awards.
6. Consequently, the employees filed a Motion for Execution before the DOLE Region VI to - CA found that DOLE-VI Regional Director arrived at its computations of the payment due
enforce the DOLE Secretary's Order. Regional Director Carlos L. Boteros made an order to the workers without any evidence from the parties, and without considering the fact
that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has a final decision upholding as case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and
valid the dismissal of most of the employees. second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Truly, in the case
- CA held that due process was not observed. at bar, the disposition of the Court of Appeals in the petition for certiorari would bar any
pending resolution of the subject motion by the DOLE-VI Regional Director, or vice-versa,
12. Hence, petition for review on certiorari by employees to SC. as they both delve with the same parties, the same cause of action, and essentially the
ISSUES: same relief; so that the two remedies can not coexist and only the appropriate one should
remain.
WON the case decided by the CA was rendered moot and academic by LFUC’s filing of a
CA Decision must be dismissed
motion for reconsideration (treated as an appeal) of the August 28, 2006 Order before the
FUC's acts of forum shopping are willful and deliberate and the penalty therefor is that
Regional Director.
both its petition with the Court of Appeals and motion for reconsideration before the
RULING + RATIO: DOLE-VI Regional Director should face dismissal or denial. But even if there were no such
"willfulness and deliberateness" on LFUC's part, the penalty for forum shopping is still
LFUC's filing of a motion for reconsideration before the DOLE-VI Regional Director dismissal of one of the actions but not necessarily of the newer one. In the case at bar,
rendered moot and academic its petition for certiorari then pending with the Court of although the motion for reconsideration with the Regional Director came later than the
Appeals; as such, LFUC's failure to withdraw the petition or Digest to even notify the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals, We have previously held that in such
appellate court of the motion for reconsideration filed before the DOLE amounts to a a situation, it is the earlier action - the petition for certiorari — that must be dismissed.
violation of the rules against forum shopping. We have ruled that the petition for certiorari is, in fact, an act of forum shopping that
must yield to the motion for reconsideration (treated by DOLE-VI Regional Director as an
There is no question that as a result of LFUC's pursuit of the two simultaneous remedies,
appeal) which is the appropriate and adequate remedy.
the rulings of the Court of Appeals on the petition for certiorari and the DOLE Secretary on
LFUC's motion for reconsideration are now essentially conflicting, as the former bars any We choose to uphold the ruling of DOLE Region VI because it is issued by the proper and
execution and instead directs a further hearing of certain evidence, while the latter states primary agency to rule on the same, because it is the adequate remedy in the ordinary
that such evidence had the chance to be heard and execution should now proceed as a course of law, because certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that must be availed of only
matter of course. Such conflict is exactly the scenario that the rules against forum if there is manifest grave abuse of discretion, and because declaring otherwise will
shopping try to avert. amount to rewarding LFUC's own disobedience to the rules against forum shopping.

The elements of litis pendentia, are present in the case at bar sipce, in both the petition CA reasoning in granting petition for certiorari completely contradicts those of the DOLE
with the Court of Appeals as well as in the motion filed with the DOLE-VI Regional and DOLE Region VI
Director, the parties are inarguably the same, the causes of action and the reliefs prayed We find that the latter finds greater support from the evidence presented. It is also
for are essentially the same, tile factual scenarios under which the reliefs are prayed for established that except when there are cogent reasons, this Court will not alter, modify
are the same and the identity of these is such that a decision in one case would amount to or reverse the factual findings of the Secretary of Labor (or her subordinates) because,
res judicata in the other action, the elements of res judicata being: (1) the judgment by reason of her official position, she is considered to have acquired expertise as her
sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a jurisdiction is confined to specific matters. For the same reason, We likewise find LFUC's
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the
contentions in the case at bar as regards the alleged denial of its right to due process to be 4. Also, the DOLE Secretary, in her Order noted that a Subpoena Duces Tecum was in fact
without merit. served on LFUC directing it to produce copies of the payrolls and daily time records for the
years 1996 to 1998, which LFUC did not comply with. In the same Order, the DOLE
CA ruled that "no evidence was submitted by the parties prior to the issuance of the Order Secretary stated that the DOLE-VI Regional Director wrote LFUC on to warn the latter that
dated August 28, 2006 by then (DOLE-VI) Regional Director Carlos Boteros." However, the
computation of the employees' wages and monetary benefits would be based on available
court only precipitately arrived at this conclusion, while failing to note and omitting to records absent LFUC's submission of the required documents. LFUC, however, still did not
discuss the explanations made by the DOLE and DOLE-VI Regional Director on the issue. heed the warning. Neither did its appeal before the DOLE Secretary after the denial of its
1. CA sustained wholesale LFUC's allegations that it was not given the opportunity to motion for reconsideration contain the said documents.
present evidence to refute the monetary claims of the complaining workers; that the 5. As for the allegation by LFUC 6 of the employees have been declared validly dismissed
employees were piece-rate truck drivers so that there was no legal basis for them to claim by the Labor Arbiter, the petitioners sufficiently explained in their Comment to the
underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, rest day pay and overtime pay; and petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals that the Labor Arbiter's ruling had been
that many of the employees have executed waivers and quitclaims which makes them no reversed by the appellate court itself, which reversal was effectively upheld by the
longer entitled to their claims. Supreme Court when it denied with finality the appeal of LFUC. In addition, We see no
- DOLE-VI Regional Director already had adequately addressed the same, stating that LFUC reason how such dismissal is relevant to the case at bar, as the money claims that were
had its "several opportunities to submit evidence .... that the workers were given their heard before the DOLE-VI Regional Director involved unpaid wages and other pays
minimum wage," during the numerous times that the case was heard in its various stages incurred prior to such dismissal.
with the DOLE Region VI all the way to the appeal to the DOLE Secretary. LFUC could have The appellate court's failure to address these factual narrations and findings of the labor
presented its evidence in those fora, at any stage of the proceedings, but it did not. tribunals put its own ruling on a dubious footing, as it now rests on nothing but
2. Then, as for the piece-rate workers, the Regional Director explained that the DOLE "assumptions, conjectures and suppositions" as the petition alleges. We have no reason
Secretary had already ruled in her Order dated September 18, 2003 that even piecerate to depart from the presumption that the labor officials performed their official duties in
workers are still entitled to payment of holiday pay, rest day pay and overtime pay a regular manner, absent any evidence from respondent that this was not the case. We
because they are "supervised workers" and ply their routes "upon clear instructions," have also previously recognized the Secretary of Labor's distinct expertise in the study
otherwise, they are subject to disciplinary actions. This order by the DOLE Secretary was and settlement of labor disputes falling under his power of compulsory arbitration and
among those that was already affirmed with finality by this Court in the previous case of that the factual findings of labor administrative officials, if supported by substantial
Iloilo La Filipina Uygongco Corporation v. Court of Appeals and, thus, is no longer open to evidence, are entitled not only to great respect but even to finality.94 Therefore, as
disputation or revision. between the bare conclusions of the appellate court, and the findings of the labor
offices, which are supported by substantial evidence, We are inclined to uphold the
3. As for the waivers and quitclaims, the Regional Director likewise explained that such latter.
may not be given credence as they were executed in violation of Administrative Order No.
105, series of 1995, which requires such waivers or quitclaims to be executed, among DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, petition GRANTED. CA decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
others, in the presence of the Regional Director or his duly authorized representatives. DOLE ORDERED TO PROCEED WITH DISPATCH IN THE ENFORCEMENT of the Writ(s) of
The waivers and quitclaims were not so executed. Such were simply not taken account of Execution
and disregarded without valid explanation by the Court of Appeals.