1. Dela Rosa Liner v.

Borela
ON Sept. 23, 2011, respondents Calixto Borela, bus driver, and Estelo Amarille, conductor, filed separate
complaints against petitioners Dela Rosa Liner, Inc., a public transport company, Rosauro Dela Rosa, Sr., and
Nora Dela Rosa for underpayment/non-payment of salaries, holiday pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave
pay, 13th month pay, sick leave and vacation leave, night shift differential, illegal deductions, and violation of
Wage Order Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16.

In a motion dated Oct. 26, 2011, the petitioners asked the labor arbiter to dismiss the case for forum shopping.
They alleged that on Sept. 28, 2011, the Court of Appeals (CA), 13th Division, disposed of a similar case between
the parties (CA-G.R. SP No. 118038) after they entered into a compromise agreement, which covered all claims
and causes of action they had against each other in relation to the respondents employment. The respondents
opposed the motion, contending that the causes of action in the present case are different from the causes of
action settled in the case the petitioners cited. When the case reached the CA, it ruled in favor of respondents.

Did the CA err?

Ruling: No.

Contrary to the petitioners submission, respondents second complaint (CA-G.R. SP No. 128188), a money claim,
is not a similar case to the first complaint (CA-G.R. SP No. 118038). Thus, the filing of the second complaint did
not constitute forum shopping and the judgment in the first case is not a res judicata ruling that bars the second
complaint.

As the CA aptly cited, the elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity of parties; (2) identity of rights asserted
and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars
such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the action under consideration.

We concur with the CA that forum shopping and res judicata are not applicable in the present case. There is no
identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and the judgment rendered in the previous action will not
amount to res judicata in the action now under consideration.

There is also no identity of causes of action in the first complaint and in the second complaint. In Yap v. Chua,
G.R. No. 186730, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 419, we held that the test to determine whether causes of action are
identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence would support both actions, or whether there is an identity in
the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would support both
actions, then they are considered the same; a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the subsequent action.

Under the circumstances of the case before us, sufficient basis exists for the NLRCs and CAs conclusions that
there is no identity of causes of action between the respondents two complaints against the petitioners. The first
complaint involved illegal dismissal/suspension, unfair labor practice with prayer for damages and attorneys
fees; while the second complaint (the subject of the present appeal) involves claims for labor standards benefits
the petitioners alleged violation of Wage Orders Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16; nonpayment of respondents sick and
vacation leave pays, 13th-month pay, service incentive leave benefit, overtime pay, and night shift differential.

As the CA correctly held, the same facts or evidence would not support both actions. To put it simply, the facts or
the evidence that would determine whether respondents were illegally dismissed, illegally suspended, or had
been the subject of an unfair labor practice act by the petitioners are not the same facts or evidence that would
support the charge of non-compliance with labor standards benefits and several wage orders. We thus cannot
find a basis for petitioners claim that the same action had been settled x x x.
3. G.R. No. 153859. December 11, 2003.*
Filipinas (Pre-Fabricated Bldg.) Systems Filsystems, Inc. (Fsfi) And Felipe A. Cruz, Jr.,
Petitioners, Vs. National Labor Relations Commission And Cresenciano Bebanco, Juanito
R. Benzon, Rey Nualla, Bonifacio Torres, Ernesto Sinconeque And Emilio Aneano,
Respondents.
Facts: Bebanco, Benzon, Nualla, Torres, Sinconque and Aneano (Respondents) filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and monetary claims against FSFI before the NLRC.

The complaint was assigned to LA Quinto who ordered the parties to file their position papers. Respondents
complied, but FSFI did not. Thus, the LA decided on the complaint and rendered judgment in favor of respondents,
including their reinstatement.

FSFI appealed to the NLRC. For the first time they submitted evidence alleging that the dismissal was due to their
projects discontinuation. Respondents, on the other hand, assailed the NLRC jurisdiction as FSFI filed it 7 days
after the reglementary period, and that no payment of the appeal bond was made. The NLRC still assumed
jurisdiction and remanded the case.

Respondents filed a petition for Certiorari before the CA, still contending the NLRCs jurisdiction.

Issue: Was FSFI able to perfect an appeal?

Held: We have consistently ruled that payment of the appeal bond is a jurisdictional requisite for the perfection
of an appeal to the NLRC. It is only in rare instances that the court relaxes this rule.
4. G.R. No. 198675, September 23, 2015
IBM Nestle Philippines Inc. vs. Nestle Philippines Inc.

Facts: IBM staged a strike against Nestle for violation of the CBA, dismissal of union officers and members and
other ULPs. As a consequence, Nestle filed with the NLRC a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of
TRO, Free Ingress and Egress Order, and Deputization Order.

NLRC then issued a TRO and later, a preliminary injunction. It also filed a motion to declare the strike illegal.

Subsequently, the SOLE issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the case and certifying the same to the NLRC.
IBM then filed a petition for certiorari questioning the SOLEs order.

After a series of conciliation meetings, IBM and Nestle agreed to compromise, as embodied in a MOA. It involves
the dismissal of all criminal cases against employees, the unions withdrawal of its petition for certiorari, and the
mutual withdrawal of their actions pending with the NLRC among others.

The parties then filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss. The NLRC approved such.

After 11 years from the time of the execution of the MOA, IBM filed for a writ of execution saying they have not
been paid the amounts stated in the same. Nestle filed its opposition saying that the remedy is barred by
prescription as the order may be executed only within five years from the date it has been final and executory. The
NLRC denied IBMs claim on the ground of prescription. IBM questions this order through certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners' claim for payment is barred by prescription

Held: Yes. It is wrong for petitioners' counsel to argue that since the NLRC
Decision approving the parties' compromise agreement was immediately
executory, there was no need to file a motion for execution. The non-fulfillment of its terms and conditions justifies
the issuance of a writ of execution. Motion for execution may be enforced within 5 years, and 10 years through an
independent action.
5. G.R. No. 182800. April 20, 2015
MANILA MINING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.LOWITO AMOR, et al., respondents.

FACTS: Respondents, regular employees Manila Mining Corporation, filed the complaint for constructive
dismissal and monetary claims before NLRC for being adversely affected by petitioners continued failure to
resume its operations. Labor Arbiter Benjamin E. Pelaez rendered a Decision holding petitioner liable for
constructive and ordered payment to its employees totaling P2,138,190.02.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed its memorandum of appeal before the NLRC and moved for the reduction of the appeal
bond to P100,000.00, on the ground of its financial losses. In opposition, respondents moved for the dismissal of
the appeal in view of the fact that, despite receipt of the appealed decision on 24 November 2004, petitioner mailed
their copy of the memorandum of appeal only on 7 February 2005. Respondents also argued that the appeal bond
tendered by petitioner was so grossly disproportionate to monetary

However, the NLRC reversed the appealed decision finding that the continued suspension of petitioners
operations was due to circumstances beyond its control, thus, respondents were not even entitled to separation.

Respondents filed under Rule 65 petition for before CA insisting that petitioners memorandum of appeal was filed
65 days after the lapse of period for appeal and called attention to the fact that, as grossly inadequate as it already
was vis--vis the P2,138,190.0216 monetary award adjudicated in their favor, the check in the sum of P100,000.00
deposited by petitioner by way of appeal bond was dishonored upon presentment for payment. On the other hand,
petitioner claimed that, having caused the same to be immediately funded, the check it issued for the appeal bond
had since been deposited by the NLRC. Insisting that the cessation of its operations was due to causes beyond its
control, petitioner argued that the subsequent closure of its business due to business losses exempted it from
paying separation pay.The CA granted respondents petition and nullifying the NLRCs Resolution, ruling that
petitioner failed to perfect its appeal therefrom considering that the copy of its 3 December 2004 Memorandum of
Appeal intended for respondents was served the latter by registered mail only on 7 February 2005. Aside from
posting an unusually smaller sum as appeal bond, petitioner was likewise faulted for replenishing the check it
issued only on 1 April 2005 or 24 days before the rendition of the assailed NLRC Decision.

ISSUE: WON petitioners appeal filed with the NLRC was fatally defective

YES. Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is
merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of
law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing
which the right to appeal is invariably lost.

The fact that the copy of memorandum of appeal intended for respondents was served upon them by registered
mail only on 7 February 2005 does not necessarily mean that petitioners appeal from the Labor Arbiters decision
was filed out of time. On the principle that justice should not be sacrificed for technicality. It has been ruled that
the failure of a party to serve a copy of the memorandum to the opposing party is not a jurisdictional defect and
does not bar the NLRC from entertaining the appeal. Considering that such an omission is merely regarded as a
formal lapse or an excusable neglect,33 the CA reversibly erred in ruling that, under the circumstances, petitioner
could not have filed its appeal earlier than 7 February 2005.

HOWEVER, Respondent correctly called attention to the fact that the check submitted by petitioner was
dishonored upon presentment for payment, thereby rendering the tender thereof ineffectual. The record shows
that petitioner only manifested its deposit of the funds for the check 24 days before the resolution of its appeal or
116 days after its right to appeal the Labor Arbiters decision had expired. Having filed its motion and
memorandum on the very last day of the reglementary period for appeal, moreover, petitioner had no one but
itself to blame for failing to post the full amount pending the NLRCs action on its motion for reduction of the
appeal bond. If redundancy be risked it must be emphasized that the posting of a bond is indispensable to the
perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Since it is
the posting of a cash or surety bond which confers jurisdiction upon the NLRC, the rule is settled that non-compliance is fatal
and has the effect of rendering the award final and executory.
6. G.R. No. 195109. February 4, 2015.*

ANDY D. BALITE, DELFIN M. ANZALDO and MONALIZA DL. BIHASA, petitioners, vs. SS VENTURES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., SUNG SIK LEE and EVELYN RAYALA, respondents

The Facts

Petitioners charged respondents with illegal dismissal and recovery of backwages, 13 th month pay and attorneys
fees before the Labor Arbiter for their termination due to several and repective reasons. Respondents averred that
petitioners were separated from employment for just causes and after affording them procedural due process of
law.

On 30 December 2007, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision 3 in favor of petitioners ordered the respondents to
pay petitioners total of P490,308.00 and to reinstate [petitioners] to their former positions.

Aggrieved, respondents interposed an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal and paying the corresponding appeal
fee. However, instead of filing the required appeal bond equivalent to the total amount of the monetary award
which is P490,308.00, respondents filed a Motion to Reduce the Appeal Bond to P100,000.00 and appended therein
a managers check bearing the said amount. Respondents cited financial difficulty as justification for their inability
to post the appeal bond in full owing to the partial shutdown of respondent companys operations.

NLRC dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents ruling that posting of an appeal bond equivalent to the
monetary award is indispensable for the perfection of the appeal and the reduction of the appeal bond, absent any
showing of meritorious ground to justify the same, is not warranted in the instant case.

On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC Decision holding that there was substantial compliance with
the rules for the perfection of an appeal because respondents seasonably filed their Memorandum of Appeal and
posted an appeal bond in the amount of P100,000.00. While the amount of the appeal bond posted was not
equivalent to the monetary award, the Court of Appeals ruled that respondents were able to sufficiently prove
their incapability to post the required amount of bond.

Petitioners, in assailing the appellate courts decision, argue that posting of an appeal bond in full is not only
mandatory but a jurisdictional requirement that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the
NLRC. They posit that the posting of an insufficient amount of appeal bond, as in this case, resulted to the non-
perfection of the appeal rendering the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT POSTING OF BOND EQUIVALENT TO FULL AMOUNT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
PERFECTION OF APPEAL

HELD:
The statutory and regulatory provisions explicitly provide that an appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must
be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. In
a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon (1) proof of payment of the
required appeal fee; (2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and (3) filing
of a memorandum of appeal.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In McBurnie v. Ganzon,15 we harmonized the provision on appeal that its procedures are fairly applied to both the
petitioner and the respondent, assuring by such application that neither one or the other party is unfairly favored.
We pronounced that the posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to 10% of the monetary award
pending resolution of the motion to reduce appeal bond shall be deemed sufficient to perfect an appeal.

By reducing the amount of the appeal bond in this case, the employees would still be assured of at least substantial
compensation, in case a judgment award is affirmed. On the other hand, management will not be effectively denied
of its statutory privilege of appeal.
9. G.R. No. 213729. September 2, 2015.*

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs.ALEXANDER P. BICHARA, respondent.

Facts: PAL hired Alexander Bichara as a flight attendant. He was included in the Purser upgrading program
from which he graduated. However, out of the 5 qualifying exams, he failed two. He was then demoted to being
a flight steward.

Bichara then filed a complaint for illegal demotion before the NLRC. The LA declared the demotion illegal and
asked PAL to reinstate him. However, PAL appealed to the NLRC and CA, which upheld the LAs findings. The
Decision then became final and executory.

During the pendency of the demotion, PAL implemented a retrenchment program which terminated Bicharas
employment. Bichara, together with union FASAP, filed a complaint for ULP, illegal retrenchment and payment.
Bichara then reached the 60-year old compulsory retirement age.

Bichara then filed a motion for execution of the LAs decision which PAL opposed due to supervening events.

LA granted Bicharas motion for execution. He also said Bichara was entitled to reinstatement, but in lieu of the
compulsory retirement, he ordered PAL to pay Bichara separation pay with the salary base of a flight purser.
PAL then appealed to the NLRC.

The NLRC reversed saying it was moot and academic. Through certiorari, the CA said the LA did not exceed his
authority in ordering the payment of separation pay?

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the NLRCs Decision and thereby awarding Bichara the
aforementioned monetary awards

Held: Since Bicharas illegal demotion has been finally decreed, he should be entitled to (a) backwages, at the
salary rate of a flight purser, from the time of retrenchment in July 1998 up until his compulsory retirement in
July 2005; (b) retirement benefits of a flight purser in accordance with the existing CBA at the time of Bicharas
retirement; and (c) attorneys fees, moral, and exemplary damages, if any,but only if this Court, in the FASAP
case, finally rules that the subject retrenchment is invalid.

***A companion to this rule is the principle of immutability of final judgments, which states that a final
judgment may no longer be altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is
meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court
renders it. Any attempt to insert, change or add matters not clearly contemplated in the dispositive portion
violates the rule on immutability of judgments.
10. AMECOS INNOVATIONS, INC.& ANTONIO MATEO v. ELIZA LOPEZ
G.R. No. 178055, 2 July 2014, SECOND DIVISION, (Del Castillo, J.)

Under Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code, claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
arising from employer-employee relationship are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters or the National Labor
Relations Commission.

Amecos Innovations, Inc. (Amecos) was complained by the Social Security System (SSS) for alleged delinquency in
the remittance of SSS contributions. Amecos attributed its failure to remit the SSS contributions to Eliza R. Lopez
(Lopez) claiming that it hired Lopez but she refused to provide Amecos with her SSS Number. Hence, Amecos no
longer enrolled Lopez with the SSS and did not deduct her corresponding contributions up to the time of her
termination. The complaint was withdrawn upon settlement of the obligation by Amecos.

Lopez did not heed the demands of Amecos, thus, the latter filed a complaint for sum of money and damages
against Lopez before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Amecos claimed that because of Lopezs misrepresentation,
they suffered actual damages by way of settlement and payment of its obligations with the SSS. Amecos contention
is that the employer-employee relationship between Amecos and Lopez is merely incidental, and does not
necessarily place their dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor tribunals but the true source of Lopezs
obligation is derived from Articles 19, 22, and 2154 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE:

Do the regular civil court have the jurisdiction over claim(s) for reimbursement arising from employer-employee
relation?

RULING:

No. SSS contributions and recovery of damages arising from employeeemployer relationship is under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. This Court holds that as between the parties, Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code
is applicable. Said provision bestows upon the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for
damages arising from employer-employee relations. The observation that the matter of SSS contributions
necessarily flowed from the employer-employee relationship between the parties shared by the lower courts and
the Court of Appeals (CA) is correct; thus, Amecos claims should have been referred to the labor tribunals. In
this connection, it is noteworthy to state that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs
provided by labor laws, but also damages governed by the Civil Code.

At the same time, it cannot be assumed that since the dispute concerns the payment of SSS premiums, Amecos
claim should be referred to the Social Security Commission (SSC) pursuant to Republic Act No. 1161, as amended
by Republic Act

No. 8282. As far as SSS is concerned, there is no longer a dispute with respect to Amecos accountability to the
System; Amecos already settled their pecuniary obligations to it. Since there is no longer any dispute regarding
coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties to speak of, the SSC need not be unnecessarily dragged into the
picture.