G.R. No.

192573               October 22, 2014 Azuelo received a copy of LA Bactin's Order dated
RICARDO N. AZUELO, Petitioner, November 6, 2006 on November 17, 2006. On November
vs. 21, 2006, Azuelo again filed a complaint with the RAB of
ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, the NLRC in San Fernando City, Pampanga for illegal
INC., Respondent. dismissal with money claims against ZAMECO, containing
the same allegations in his first complaint. The case was
Before this Court is a petition for review on docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-11-10779-06 and
certiorari  under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to
1 was assigned to LA Reynaldo V. Abdon (LA Abdon).
annul and set aside the Decision  dated February 26, 2010
2

and Resolution  dated June 10, 2010 issued by the Court of

3
On December 20, 2006, ZAMECO filed a Motion to
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107762, which affirmed Dismiss  the second complaint filed by Azuelo on the
9

the Decision  dated

4
September 22, 2008 and ground of res judicata. ZAMECO pointed out that Azuelo
Resolution  dated December 15, 2008 of the National Labor
5
had earlier filed a similar complaint, which was dismissed
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. by LA Bactin due to his unreasonable failure to submit his
052567-07. position paper despite ample opportunity given to him by
LA Bactin. ZAMECO likewise averred that Azuelo should
The Facts have appealed from LA Bactin's Order dated November 6,
2006 instead of filing a complaint for illegal dismissal
Petitioner Ricardo N. Azuelo (Azuelo) was employed by anew.
the respondent ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(ZAMECO) as a maintenance worker. It appears that Azuelo opposed ZAMECO's motion to dismiss,  alleging 10

sometime in March 2006, Azuelo filed with the Regional that the dismissal of his first complaint by LA Bactin was
Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the NLRC in San Fernando without prejudice. He explained that his failure to submit
City, Pampanga a Complaint  for illegal dismissal and non-
6 his position paper was due to ZAMECO's refusal to furnish
payment of benefits against ZAMECO. The complaint was him with the complete documents pertaining to his illegal
docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB III-03-9912-06 and was dismissal. He further claimed that, since the dismissal of his
assigned to Labor Arbiter (LA) Mariano" L. Bactin (LA first complaint was without prejudice, his remedy was
Bactin). After several mediations, LA Bactin ordered the either to file a motion for reconsideration or to re-file the
parties to submit their respective position papers on July case within 10 days from receipt of the order of dismissal.
14, 2006.
On March 12, 2007, LA Abdon issued an Order,  which 11

On July 14, 2006, Azuelo, instead of submitting his dismissed Azuelo's second complaint for illegal dismissal
position paper, moved that the submission of his position on the ground of res judicata. LA Abdon pointed out that
paper be extended to August 4, 2006, which was granted by the dismissal of Azuelo's first complaint for illegal
LA Bactin. On August 4, 2006, Azuelo again failed to dismissal was with prejudice; that the appropriate remedy
submit his position paper. LA Bactin then directed Azuelo available to Azuelo against LA Bactin's dismissal of the
to submit his position papers on August 22, 2006. On the first complaint was to appeal from the same and not to file
said date, Azuelo, instead of submitting his position paper, a second complaint for illegal dismissal.
moved for the issuance of an order directing ZAMECO to
furnish him with a complete copy of the investigation On appeal, the NLRC, in its Decision  dated September 22,
12

report as regards his dismissal. ZAMECO opposed the said 2008, affirmed the Order issued on March 12, 2007 by LA
motion, asserting that it has already furnished Azuelo with Abdon. The NLRC pointed out that LA Bactin gave Azuelo
a copy of its investigation report. ample opportunity to submit his position paper, which he
still failed to do. That his failure to prosecute his action for
On November 6, 2006, LA Bactin issued an Order,  which
7 unreasonable length of time indeed warranted the dismissal
reads: of his first complaint, which is deemed to be with
prejudice, unless otherwise stated. Considering that the
Record shows that respondent has already filed its position Order issued on November 6, 2006 by LA Bactin did not
paper while complainant, despite ample opportunity given qualify the nature of the dismissal of the first complaint, the
him, failed to file his[,] leaving this office with no option NLRC opined that the said dismissal is with prejudice.
but to dismiss this case for lack of interest. Thus, the filing of the second complaint for illegal
dismissal is already barred by the prior dismissal of Azuelo'
s first complaint.
WHEREFORE, let this case be, as it is hereby dismissed
for lack of[merit].
Azuelo sought reconsideration  of the Decision dated
13

September 22, 2008 but it was denied by the NLRC in its

SO ORDERED. 8

Resolution  dated December 15, 2008.

14
Azuelo then filed a petition for certiorari  with the CA,
15
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in passion or personal hostility."20

ruling that the dismissal of his first complaint was with

prejudice, thus constituting a bar to the filing anew of his After a thorough review of the records of the instant case,
complaint for illegal dismissal against ZAMECO. He the Court finds that the CA did not commit any reversible
likewise asserted that, since the dismissal of his first error in upholding the dismissal of Azuelo's second
complaint was without prejudice, the remedy available to complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground of res
him, contrary to LA Abdon's ruling, was to re-file his judicata. The NLRC did not abuse its discretion in ruling
complaint, which he did. that the Order issued on November 6, 2006 by LA Bactin,
which dismissed the first complaint filed by Azuelo, was an
On February 26, 2010, the CA rendered the herein assailed adjudication on the merits.
Decision,  which denied the petition for certiorari filed by
16

Azuelo. The CA held that the NLRC did not commit any At the core of the instant petition is the determination of the
abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of Azuelo' s nature of the dismissal of Azuelo's first complaint, i.e.,
second complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground of res whether the dismissal is with prejudice as held by the labor
judicata. That the dismissal of the first complaint, which tribunals. The Order issued on November 6, 2006 by LA
was with prejudice, bars the filing of a subsequent Bactin is silent as to the nature of the dismissal; it merely
complaint for illegal dismissal based on the same stated that the complaint was dismissed due to Azuelo's
allegations. failure, despite ample opportunity afforded him, to submit
his position paper.
Azuelo's Motion for Reconsideration  was denied by the
17

CA in its Resolution  dated June 10, 2010.

18
Ultimately, the question that has to be resolved is this -
whether the dismissal of a complaint for illegal dismissal
Hence, the instant petition. due to the unreasonable failure of the complainant to
submit his position paper amounts to a dismissal with
Issue prejudice.

Essentially, the issue set forth by Azuelo for the Court's The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC (2005
resolution is whether the dismissal of his first complaint for Revised Rules), the rules applicable at the time of the
illegal dismissal, on the ground of lack of interest on his controversy, is silent as to the nature of the dismissal of a
part to prosecute the same, bars the filing of another complaint on the ground of unreasonable failure to submit a
complaint for illegal dismissal against ZAMECO based on position paper by the complainant. Nevertheless, the 2005
the same allegations. Revised Rules, particularly Section 3, Rule I thereof,
provides for the suppletory application of the Rules of
Ruling of the Court Court to arbitration proceedings before the LAs and the
NLRC in the absence of any applicable provisions therein,
viz:
The petition is denied.
Section 3. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. -
At the outset, it should be stressed that in a petition for
In the absence of any applicable provisions in these Rules,
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, such as the
and in order to effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code,
instant petition, where the CA' s disposition in a labor case
the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court of the
is sought to be calibrated, the Court's review is quite
Philippines may, in the interest of expeditious dispensation
limited. In ruling for legal correctness, the Court has to
of labor justice and whenever practicable and convenient,
view the CA decision in the same context that the petition
be applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and
for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; the Court has
effect. (Emphases ours)
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 unjustified failure of a complainant in arbitration
the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the proceedings before the LA to submit his position paper is
case was correct.  "The phrase 'grave abuse of discretion' is
19 akin to the case of a complainant's failure to prosecute his
well-defined in our jurisprudence. It exists where an act of action for an unreasonable length of time in ordinary civil
a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or proceedings. In both cases, the complainants are remiss,
whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of sans reasonable cause, to prove the material allagations in
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and their respective complaints. Accordingly, the Court sees no
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a reason not to apply the rules relative to unreasonable failure
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act to prosecute an action in ordinary civil proceedings to the
at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is unjustified failure of a complainant to submit his position
paper in arbitration proceedings before the LA.
In this regard, Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court Azuelo's insistence that the dismissal of his first complaint
provides that: by LA Bactin was without prejudice since he was not
remiss in pursuing his complaint for illegal dismissal is
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. – If, for no plainly untenable. To stress, the Order dated November 6,
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date 2006 was unqualified; hence, the dismissal is deemed with
of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the prejudice pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of
complaint, or to prosecute his action for an Court. In any case, the Court finds Azuelo's failure to file
unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these his position paper, despite ample opportunity therefor,
Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be unjustified. On this score, LA Abdon' s observation is
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the instructive, thus:
court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or That complainant failed to prosecute his action for
in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect unreasonable length of time before Labor Arbiter Bactin is
of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise supported by the records of the case. Records show that as
declared by the court. (Emphases ours) early as July 14, 2006, complainant was already required to
submit his position paper on said date. However, instead of
"The dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the submitting one, he requested for "more time" or until
effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily August 4, 2006 within which to submit his position paper x
understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another x x. Came August 4, 2006, complainant failed to submit the
action, unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. required position paper and again requested for an
Stated differently, the general rule is that dismissal of a extension of time until August 22, 2006. The reason given
case for failure to prosecute is to be regarded as an was due [to] "voluminous workload" xx x. Despite the
adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing extensions given to complainant, the latter failed to submit
of another action, and the only exception is when the order his position paper on due date. Instead, what complainant
of dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the submitted on August 22, 2006 is a Motion For the Issuance
dismissal is without prejudice." 21 of Order Directing Respondent to Furnish Complainant The
Complete Copy of Investigation Report. As correctly ruled
Thus, in arbitration proceedings before the LA, the by Labor Arbiter Abdon, the filing of the said motion is of
dismissal of a complaint on account of the unreasonable no moment. The fact remains that more than one (1) month
failure of the complainant to submit his position paper is has already lapsed from the time complainant was first
likewise regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with required to submit his position paper on July 14, 2006 up to
prejudice to the filing of another complaint, except when the last extension on August 22, 2006. Further, if
the LA's order of dismissal expressly states otherwise. complainant really intends to prosecute his case within the
reasonable time, he should not have waited for August 22,
2006 to file said motion.
As already stated, the Order dated November 6, 2006,
which dismissed Azuelo's first complaint due to his
unreasonable failure to submit his position paper is It is also worth stressing that under Section 7, Rule V of the
unqualified. It is thus considered as an adjudication on the NLRC Rules of Procedure, parties are directed to submit
merits and with prejudice to filing of another complaint. position paper within an inextendible period of ten (10)
Accordingly, the NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it calendar days from the date of termination of the
affirmed LA Abdon' s dismissal of the second complaint mandatory conciliation and mediation conference. Clearly,
for illegal dismissal. Azuelo' s filing of a second complaint complainant went beyond this period.  (Emphasis and
23

for illegal dismissal against ZAMECO based on the same italics in the original)
allegations cannot be permitted lest the rule on res judicata
be transgressed. If indeed Azuelo could not prepare his position paper due
to the alleged refusal of ZAMECO to furnish him with its
"Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or investigation report on his dismissal, he should have
decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is immediately sought the issuance of an order directing
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all ZAMECO to produce the said investigation report.
later suits and on all points and matters determined in the However, Azuelo only moved for the production of the
previous suit. The term literally means a 'matter adjudged, investigation report on the due date of the third extension of
judicially acted upon, or settled by judgment.' The principle time granted him by LA Bactin to submit his position
bars a subsequent suit involving the same parties, subject paper. It is thus apparent that Azuelo's motion seeking the
matter, and cause of action. The rationale for the rule is that production of the investigation report is merely a ruse to
'public policy requires that controversies must be settled further extend the period given to Azuelo within which to
with finality at a given point in time."'
22 submit his position paper.
Nonetheless, Azuelo contended that technical rules of SO ORDERED.
procedure, such as the rule on dismissals of actions due to
the fault of the plaintiff under Section 3, Rule 17 of the
Rules of Court, does not apply to proceedings before the
LAs and the NLRC. Hence, Azuelo claimed, LA Abdon
erred in dismissing his second complaint for illegal
dismissal.

The Court does not agree.

Indeed, technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor

cases.  The LAs and the NLRC are mandated to use every
1âwphi1

and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case

speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of
the law or procedure.  Nevertheless, though technical rules
24

of procedure are not ends in themselves, they are necessary

for an effective and expeditious administration of justice. 25

The non-applicability of technical rules of procedure in

labor cases should not be made a license to disregard the
rights of employers against unreasonable and/or unjustified
claims. Azuelo was given sufficient chances to establish his
claim against ZAMECO, which he failed to do when he did
not submit his position paper despite several extensions FACTS:
granted him. He cannot now be allowed to raise anew his
supposed illegal dismissal as it would be plainly unjust to Petitioner Ricardo N. Azuelo was a
ZAMECO. It bears stressing that the expeditious maintenance worker of ZAMECO II Electric
disposition of labor cases is mandated not only for the Cooperative, Inc. He filed with the Regional Arbitration
benefit of the employees, but of the employers as well. Branch (RAB) of the NLRC a Complaint for illegal
dismissal and non-payment of benefits against
It should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of ZAMECO. After several mediations, LA Bactin
justice in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of the ordered the parties to submit their respective position
inherent economic inequality between labor and papers on July 14, 2006.
management. The intent is to balance the scale of justice; to
put up the two parties on relatively equal positions. There
may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring Azuelo, instead of submitting his position
labor over the interests of management but never should the paper, moved for an extension to August 4, 2006
scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer, which was granted by LA Bactin, still Azuelo failed to
Justicia remini regarda est (Justice is to be denied to none). 26
submit his position paper on the said date. He was
directed to submit on August 22 but Azuelo, did not
Lastly, the Court notes that Azuelo sought the wrong submit his position paper, instead moved for the
remedy in assailing the Order dated November 6, 2006 issuance of an order directing ZAMECO to furnish him
issued by LA Bactin. Considering that the dismissal of with a complete copy of the investigation report as
Azuelo's first complaint was already an adjudication on the regards his dismissal. ZAMECO opposed the said
merits, he should have filed a verified memorandum of motion, asserting that it has already furnished Azuelo
appeal with the RAB of the NLRC in San Fernando City, with a copy of its investigation report.
Pampanga within 10 calendar days from receipt of the said
order pursuant to Section 1, Rule VI of the 2005 Revised LA Bactin dismissed this case for lack of
Rules instead of re-filing his complaint for illegal interest. Azuelo then filed a second complaint alleging
dismissal.  His failure to do so rendered LA Bactin' s Order
27
that the dismissal of his first complaint by LA Bactin
dated November 6, 2006, which dismissed his first was without prejudice. He explained that his failure to
complaint for illegal dismissal, final and executory. submit his position paper was due to ZAMECO's
refusal to furnish him with the complete documents
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing pertaining to his illegal dismissal.
disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
February 26, 2010 and Resolution dated June 10, 2010 of LA Abdon pointed out that the dismissal of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107762 are hereby Azuelo's first complaint for illegal dismissal was with
AFFIRMED. prejudice hence the second complaint was dismissed.
 On appeal, the NLRC ruled that dismissal of position paper despite several extensions granted
the first complaint is with prejudice hence, the second him.
complaint for illegal dismissal is already barred by the
prior dismissal of Azuelo' s first complaint. Azuelo's first complaint due to his unreasonable
failure to submit his position paper is unqualified. It is thus
Issue: Whether the dismissal of a complaint for illegal considered as an adjudication on the merits and with
dismissal due to the unreasonable failure of the prejudice to filing of another complaint.
complainant to submit his position paper amounts to a
dismissal with prejudice Hence, the dismissal of his complaint for
illegal dismissal amounts to adjudication on the merits
Ruling: and with prejudice which bars the filing of a
subsequent complaint based on the same allegations.
Yes. The dismissal of the complaint was with
prejudice.

The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the

NLRC the rules applicable at the time of the controversy, is
silent as to the nature of the dismissal of a complaint on the
ground of unreasonable failure to submit a position paper
by the complainant. However, Section 3, Rule I thereof,
provides for the suppletory application of the Rules of
Court to arbitration proceedings before the LAs and the
NLRC in the absence of any applicable provisions therein.
Which means that in order to effectuate the objectives of
the Labor Code, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of
Court of the Philippines may, in the interest of expeditious
dispensation of labor justice and whenever practicable and
convenient, be applied by analogy or in a suppletory
character and effect.

Pursuant to the rules of court, the general rule is

that 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 to the
rule is when the order of dismissal expressly contains a
qualification that the dismissal is without prejudice.

Applying in arbitration proceedings before the LA,

the dismissal of a complaint on account of the unreasonable
failure of the complainant to submit his position paper is
likewise regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with
prejudice to the filing of another complaint, except when
the LA's order of dismissal expressly states otherwise.

Technical rules of procedure are not binding in

labor cases, it is because LAs and the NLRC are mandated
to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts
in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of the law or procedure. However, these
technical rules of procedure are necessary for an effective
and expeditious administration of justice. Non-applicability
of technical rules of procedure in labor cases should not be
made a license to disregard the rights of employers against
unreasonable and/or unjustified claims.

In the case at bar, Azuelo was given sufficient

chances to establish his claim against ZAMECO,
which he failed to do when he did not submit his