October 22, 2014
Ponente: Reyes, J.
FACTS:
·
Ricardo Azuelo, employed by ZAMECO as a
maintenance worker, filed a case before the Regional Arbitration Branch of NLRC
in San Fernando for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits against
ZAMECO.
·
Labor Arbiter Bactin ordered the parties to
submit their respective position papers on July 14, 2006. Instead of filing,
Azuelo moved that the submission of his position paper be extended to August 4,
which was granted by LA Bactin.
·
On August 4, Azuelo again failed to submit his
position paper. LA Bactin then directed Azuelo to submit his position paper on
August 22.
·
On August 22, instead of submitting his
position paper, Azuelo moved for the issuance of an order directing ZAMECO to
furnish him with a complete copy of the investigation report as regards his
dismissal. ZAMECO opposed the said motion asserting that it has already
furnished Azuelo with a copy of its investigation report.
·
LA Bactin issued an Order dismissing the
complaint for failure of Azuela to submit his position paper despite the ample
opportunity given to him.
·
On November 21, 2006, Azuelo filed again a
complaint with RAB of NLRC for illegal dismissal against ZAMECO.
·
ZAMECO filed a Motion to Dismiss the second
complaint filed by Azuelo on the ground of res judicata and averred that Azuelo
should have appealed from LA Bactin’s Order instead of filing a complaint for
illegal dismissal anew.
·
The LA assigned for that case, LA Abdon,
dismissed the complaint on ground of res judicata and that the correct remedy
for Azuelo was to appeal and not to file a new complaint.
·
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of
LA Abdon. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
RULING:
Whether or
not the dismissal of his first complaint for illegal dismissal, on the ground
of lack of interest on his part to prosecute the same, bars the filing of
another complaint for illegal dismissal against ZAMECO based on the same
allegations—YES.
·
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court: where the CA’s
disposition in a labor case is sought to be calibrated, the Court’s review is
quite limited. The Court has to view the CA decision in the same context that
the petition for certiorari ruled upon was presented to it. The Court also has
to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined
the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision
before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the
case was correct.
·
The CA did NOT commit any reversible error in
upholding the dismissal of Azuelo’s second complaint. In order to come up with
this conclusion, the Court looked into the determination of the nature of the
dismissal of Azuelo’s first complaint (i.e., whether the dismissal was with
prejudice as held by the labor tribunals).
·
The following provisions provide the legal
basis of the Court’s decision: 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC;
Sec. 3 of Rule I: suppletory application of the ROC to arbitration proceedings
before the LAs and the NLRC in the absence of any applicable provisions; and
Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.
·
General Rule: The dismissal of a case for
failure to prosecute is to be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and
with prejudice to the filing of another action. Exception: When the order of
dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is without
prejudice.
·
The Order of LA Bactin is deemed with
prejudice pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17 of ROC.
·
NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it
affirmed LA Abdon’s dismissal of the second complaint for illegal dismissal.
Azuelo’s filing of a second complaint cannot be permitted lest the rule on res
judicata be transgressed.
·
If Azuelo could not prepare his position paper
due to the alleged refusal of ZAMECO to furnish him with his investigation
report on his dismissal, he should have immediately sought the issuance of an
order directing ZAMECO to produce said investigation report. However, Azuelo
only moved for the production of the investigation report on the due date of
the third extension time.