verified petition (nlrc)(toriano)

8/10/2019 Verified Petition (Nlrc)(Toriano)

1/12

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Cebu City

FELIPE DATO LACSON,

Petitioner,

- ersus - RAB CASE NO! "I-#$-%#&'(-%)

HON. ROMULO P.

SUMALINOG in his c*p*city *s

Actin+ Eecutie L*bor Arbiter,

*n DALO/ NELSON

TORIANO, ET. AL., Responents!

--------------------------------------

MEMORANDUM

In support of

"ERI.IE/ PETITION

TO ANN0L OR/ER /ATE/ /ECEMBER %1, (#%&

2IT3 APPLICATION .OR T3E ISS0ANCE O.

TEMPORAR4 RESTRAININ5 OR/ER6 PRELIMINAR4 IN70NCTION

Petitioner .elipe /*tu L*cson, by counsel, 8ost respectfully ele*tes

for reie9 throu+h this erifie petition in *ccor*nce 9ith Rule :II of the

NLRC Rules of Procedure the Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%& of Public

Responent, the 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter, *n *lle+es th*t ;%< there is pri8*

f*cie eience of *buse of iscretion on the p*rt of the 3onor*ble L*bor

Arbiter in issuin+ the Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%&= ;(< Petitioner r*ises

purely >uestions of l*9 for the resolution of the 3onor*ble Co88ission *n;)< the Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%& 9ill c*use +r*e in?ustice upon

Petitioner if not *nnulle or rectifie! The Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%&

9*s issue by the 3onor*ble Arbiter urin+ pre-eecution proceein+s, *n

there is no *ppe*l, or *ny other pl*in, speey *n *e>u*te re8ey in the

orin*ry course of l*9!

The ori+in*l copy of the Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%& renere by

the 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter is hereto *tt*che *s Anne @A *n is 8*e *n

inte+r*l p*rt of this Petition!

I. MATERIAL DATES

%!% Petitioner receie on 7*nu*ry 1, (#%1 * copy of the Orer *te

/ece8ber %1, (#%& of the 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter sub?ect of the present

Petition, +iin+ Petitioner until 7*nu*ry %1, (#%1 9ithin 9hich to file *

erifie petition in *ccor*nce 9ith Rule :II of the NLRC Rules of

1


2/12

Procedure! Petitioner respectfully 8*nifests th*t the inst*nt Petition is

ti8ely file!

II. GROUNDS

(!% The 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter +r*ely *buse his iscretion *n rule

in * 8*nner cle*rly contr*ry to l*9 9hen he *9*re sep*r*tion p*y in f*or

of pri*te responents throu+h his Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%& espite

the fin*l *n eecutory ?u+8ent ecl*rin+ pri*te responents 9ere not

ille+*lly is8isse!

(!( The 3onor*ble L*bor Arboter co88itte +r*e *buse of iscretion

*8ountin+ to l*c or ecess of ?urisiction 9hen *t the eecution st*+e he

issue the Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%&, 9hich subst*nti*lly 8oifie the

fin*l *n eecutory /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%), in bl*t*nt iol*tion

of the rule on fin*lity *n i88ut*bility of ?u+8ents to the etre8e

pre?uice of herein Petitioner!

(!) The 3onor*ble Arbiter +r*ely *buse his iscretion 9hen he orere

the p*y8ent of sep*r*tion p*y to pri*te responents, espite the finin+ th*t

pri*te responents 9ere not ille+*lly is8isse in the /ecision *te

/ece8ber (, (#%), 9hich is fin*l *n binin+ *+*inst pri*te responents

9ho i not *ppe*l the s*i /ecision!

III. DISCUSSION

3.1 THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER GRAVELY ABUSED

HIS DISCRETION AND RULED IN A MANNER CLEARLY

CONTRARY TO LAW WHEN HE AWARDED SEPARATION PAY IN

FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS THROUGH HIS ORDER

DATED DECEMBER 15, 2014 DESPITE THE FINAL AND

EECUTORY !UDGMENT DECLARING PRIVATE RESPONDENTS

WERE NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

)!%!% The 3onor*ble Arbiter c*te+oric*lly ecl*re in the /ecision *te

/ece8ber (, (#%) th*t herein pri*te responents 9ere not is8isse fro8

their e8ploy8ent *t 3*cien* S*ntol, to 9itD

@In the present c*se, the f*cts *n the eience i not est*blish

* pri8* f*cie c*se th*t co8pl*in*nts 9ere is8isse fro8

e8ploy8ent! It 9*s not een ispute th*t co8pl*in*nts continue

9orin+ in 3*! S*ntol on the portions o9ne *n oper*te by M*!7esus* /! L*cson *n Rene /! L*cson! This cle*rly epl*ine the

re*son 9hy they h* not 9ore 9ith responent .elipe /*tu L*cson

bec*use they preferre to 9or 9ith the other co-o9ners of 3*!

S*ntol!

2


3/12

)!%!( 3*in+ foun th*t herein pri*te responents 9ere not is8isse by

Petitioner, but r*ther, preferre to 9or *t other f*r8s in 3*! S*ntol, the

3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter "#$%#$$&"herein pri*te responents cl*i8 for

ille+*l is8iss*l in his /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%) the ispositie

portion of 9hich re*sD

@23ERE.ORE, pre8ises consiere, ?u+8ent is hereby

renere orerin+ the /ISMISSAL of the c*se for l*c of 8erit!

3o9eer, responent .ELIPE /AT0 LACSON is hereby

/IRECTE/ to +ie co8pl*in*nts NELSON TORIANO, 5LECERIO

ARRABIS, SE5IN/INO 5LARA5A, 7R!, "ICENTE I5NACIO,

/ESIREE ARRABIS, 5INA LEPORA, REME/IOS MON/I/O,

"ILMA MON/I/O, MAR4 7EAN TORIANO *n CERILASARMIENTO their usu*l 9or *ssi+n8ents in 3*! S*ntol s*ns

b*c9*+es!

The ori+in*l copy of the *fore->uote /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%) is

hereto *tt*che *s Anne @B *n is 8*e *n inte+r*l p*rt of this Petition!)!%!) The *boe->uote /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%) 9*s '()

*++&*&"by the pri*te responents, *n pursu*nt to Rule ", Section (% of

theNLRC Rules of Procedure, h*s *lre*y beco8e -#'* *'" &&)(!

)!%!& Pri*te responents file * @Motion for Issu*nce of 2rit of Eecution

*n to Orer the NLRC Sheriff to Physic*lly Reinst*te Co8pl*in*nts to their

.or8er Position 9ith Co8put*tion of Co8pl*in*nts Accrue S*l*ry!

)!%!1 The 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter conucte * Pre-eecution Conference

on M*rch (&, (#%&!

)!%!1 /urin+ the s*i Conference, herein Petitioner 8*nifeste his

9illin+ness to f*ithfully co8ply 9ith the ispositie portion of the *fore->uote /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%) to +ie pri*te responents their

@usu*l 9or *ssi+n8ents *t 3*! S*ntol! Petitioner *n pri*te responents

propose 9*ys by 9hich @the usu*l 9or *ssi+n8ents c*n be eter8ine

urin+ the s*i conference!

)!%! On April (), (#%&, herein Petitioner sub8itte his Co88ent to the

8otion for eecution file by herein pri*te responents! In *ition to the

ocu8ent*ry eience sub8itte by Petitioner in support of his position

p*per, Petitioner *tt*che p*yrolls in the f*r8 oper*te by Cibie L*cson, son

of Rene /! L*cson, co-o9ner of one of the f*r8s *t 3*! S*ntol to sho9 th*tpri*te responents continue their 9or in 3*! S*ntol on the f*r8s o9ne

by the other co-o9ners of 3*! S*ntol 9here they preferre to 9or,

incluin+ the perio fro8 the ti8e Petitioner receie * copy of the /ecision

*te /ece8ber (, (#%) on 7*nu*ry %#, (#%& up to the *te of filin+! A

3


4/12

copy of the Co88ent *te April (), (#%& is hereto *tt*che *s Anne @C

*n is 8*e *n inte+r*l p*rt hereof!

)!%!' Petitioner *lso sub8itte * P(*% (- W(6, 9hich propose *

9*y in 9hich Petitioner c*n +ie the pri*te responents their @usu*l 9or

*ssi+n8ents in f*ithful co8pli*nce 9ith the fin*l /ecision *te /ece8ber

(, (#%)! A copy of the @Pro+r*8 of 2or is hereto *tt*che *s Anne @/

*n is 8*e *n inte+r*l p*rt hereof!

)!%!$ 3o9eer, inste* of c*usin+ the eecution of the /ecision *te

/ece8ber (, (#%) strictly in *ccor*nce 9ith its ter8s by rulin+ on the

8*nner on ho9 Petitioner sh*ll +ie pri*te responents their usu*l 9or

*ssi+n8ents, the 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter +r*ely *buse his iscretion

9hen he 8oifie the fin*l *n eecutory /ecision *te /ece8ber (,(#%) *n orere herein Petitioner to p*y pri*te responents sep*r*tion

p*y, espite the f*ct th*t s*i pri*te responents 9ere not is8isse, le+*lly

or ille+*lly! The ispositie portion of the ch*llen+e Orer *te /ece8ber

%1, (#%& of the 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter st*tesD

@WHEREFORE, the co8pl*in*nts Motion for the

Co8put*tion of Accrue S*l*ries is DENIED for l*c of 8erit!

3o9eer, in li+ht of the *pp*rent str*ine rel*tions of p*rties,

responent FELIPE DATU LACSON is DIRECTED to p*y

co8pl*in*nts, *s follo9sD

Nelson Tori*no ;($6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< P%$,#&&!$

5lecerio Arr*bis ;%'6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< %#,F11!$%

Se+unino 5l*r*+* 7r! ;%$6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< %%,##!('

/esiree Ar*bis ;%&6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< F,#((!&)

Re8eios Monio ;%16%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< F,!$$

M*ry 7e*n Tori*no ;(6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< %,'11!F&

"icente I+n*cio ;'6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< &,1%%!(%5in* Lepor* ;%$6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< %%!##!('

"il8* Monio ;%'6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< %#,F11!$%

Ceril* S*r8iento ;%$6%'$P%%&,'%)!'1< %%,##!('

P114,713.75

or the tot*l su8 of ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND

SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTEEN *'" 75/100 PESOS

8P114,713.759*s their sep*r*tion p*y, in lieu of reinst*te8ent!

SO OR/ERE/!

)!%!F Petitioner r*ises the follo9in+ >uestion of l*9 for the resolution

of the 3onor*ble Co88issionD 2hether or not the 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter

c*n orer the p*y8ent of sep*r*tion p*y to l*borers 9ho 9ere not ille+*lly

4


5/12

is8isse *s *?u+e in * fin*l *n eecutory ?u+8ent urin+ the

proceein+s for the eecution of the s*i fin*l ?u+8entG

)!%!%# 2ith *ll ue respect to the 3onor*ble Court, Petitioner

respectfully sub8its th*t the *boe >uote Orer is null *n oi for h*in+

been issue in irect iol*tion of est*blishe principles of l*9 *n

?urispruence *n9ill c*use +r*e in?ustice upon Petitioner if not *nnulle or

rectifie!

)!%!%% This >uestion 9*s s>u*rely *resse by the 3onor*ble

Supre8e Court in the recent c*se of Leopard Security and Investigation

Agency vs. Quitoy;5!R! No! %$)&&, .ebru*ry (#, (#%)


6/12

*n confience in or h*s no s*y in the oper*tion of the e8ployers

business! Althou+h liti+*tion 8*y *lso en+ener * cert*in e+ree of

hostility, it h*s lie9ise been rule th*t the unerst*n*ble str*in in

the p*rties rel*tions 9oul not necess*rily rule out reinst*te8ent

9hich 9oul, other9ise, beco8e the rule r*ther th*n the eception in

ille+*l is8iss*l c*ses! ;E8ph*sis copie fro8 the ori+in*l *n

supplie by the *uthor!uestion th*t shoul h*e been resole by the

3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter urin+ the proceein+s for the eecution of the

/ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%) 9*s the eter8in*tion of ho9 pri*te

responents c*n be +ien their @usu*l 9or *ssi+n8ents, t*in+ into

consier*tion the propos*ls sub8itte by the p*rties for the i8ple8ent*tion

of the fin*l ?u+8ent of the 3onor*ble Arbiter!

3.2 THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED GRAVEABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LAC> OR ECESS OF

!URISDICTION WHEN AT THE EECUTION STAGE HE ISSUED

THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 15, 2014, WHICH

SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED THE FINAL AND EECUTORY

DECISION DATED DECEMBER 2?, 2013, IN BLATANT

VIOLATION OF THE RULE ON FINALITY AND IMMUTABILITY

OF !UDGMENTS TO THE ETREME PRE!UDICE OF HEREIN

PETITIONER.

)!(!% Public Responent +r*ely *buse his iscretion 9hen he issue theOrer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%& subst*nti*lly 8oifyin+ the fin*l *n

eecutory /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%), in bl*t*nt iol*tion of the

fun*8ent*l rule on fin*lity *n i88ut*bility of ?u+8ents!

6


7/12

)!(!( It is cle*r fro8 the /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%) th*t the cl*i8s

of pri*te responents h*e *lre*y been trie, *?uic*te upon *n

eter8ine 9ith fin*lity! The *fore-8entione ?u+8ent *lre*y constitutes

the fin*l eter8in*tion of the ri+hts of the pri*te responents vis--vis the

Petitioner!

)!(!) The /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%) is8isse the c*se for ille+*l

is8iss*l file by herein pri*te responents! This /ecision h* *lre*y

beco8e fin*l *n binin+ *+*inst the p*rties for h*in+ f*ile to *ppe*l the

s*8e! Pri*te responents h* in f*ct *lre*y file * 8otion for the

eecution of the /ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%)! The *9*r of

sep*r*tion p*y irectly conflicts 9ith *n 8oifies the 3onor*ble L*bor

Arboters o9n fin*l ?u+8ent th*t there 9*s no ille+*l is8iss*l!

)!(!& It is settle ?urispruence th*t once * ecision beco8es fin*l, een the

court 9hich h*s renere it c*n no lon+er *lter or 8oify it, ecept to correct

cleric*l errors or 8ist*es! Other9ise, there 9oul be no en to liti+*tion,

thus settin+ to n*u+ht the 8*in role of courts of ?ustice, 9hich is, to *ssist in

the enforce8ent of the rule of l*9 *n the 8*inten*nce of pe*ce *n orer,

by settlin+ ?ustici*ble controersies 9ith fin*lity! ;Heirs of Remigio Tan vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court, 5!R! No! '%#)) 7uly (F, %F$$uire to co8ply only 9ith 9h*t 9*s ecree in the ispositie portion

of the fin*l ?u+8ent bein+ enforce!

)!(! As epl*ine in the c*se of u!an International Corp. vs. Hon.

Reyes" ;5!R! No! %$('(F, Septe8ber (F, (#%#


8/12

/eeply in+r*ine in our ?urispruence is the principle th*t *

ecision th*t h*s *c>uire fin*lity beco8es i88ut*ble *n

un*lter*ble! As such, it 8*y no lon+er be 8oifie in *ny respect een

if the 8oific*tion is 8e*nt to correct erroneous conclusions of f*ct orl*9 *n 9hether it 9ill be 8*e by the court th*t renere it or by the

hi+hest court of the l*n!

The octrine of fin*lity of ?u+8ent is +roune on the

fun*8ent*l principle of public policy *n soun pr*ctice th*t, *t the

ris of occ*sion*l error, the ?u+8ent of courts *n the *9*r of

>u*si-?uici*l *+encies 8ust beco8e fin*l on so8e efinite *te fieby l*9! ;E8ph*sis supplie!uire the este ri+ht of h*in+ the fin*l *n

eecutory ?u+8ent enforce strictly in *ccor*nce 9ith its ter8s! There is

no st*n*r by 9hich the in?ury th*t Petitioner 9ill suffer c*n be 8e*sure if

the eecution proceein+s before the 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter *re not

restr*ine, specific*lly, the orer re>uirin+ Petitioner to p*y sep*r*tion p*y

to pri*te responents! There is no *8ount th*t c*n *e>u*tely or f*irly

reco8pense Petitioner fro8 the *8*+e or in?ury th*t 9ill result to the

10


11/12

Petitioner shoul the eecution proceein+s before the 3onor*ble L*bor

Arbiter *re *llo9e to continue!

&!) The #%%&"#*)& #$$*'& (- * )&%+(* &$)*#'#' ("& in

*ccor*nce 9ith Rule :II Section %# of the NLRC Rules of Procedureis of

&') '&&$$#), in orer to restr*in the continu*tion of eecution

proceein+s in li+ht of the cle*rly unl*9ful rulin+ of the 3onor*ble L*bor

Arbiter! The Petitioner st*ns to suffer +re*t *n irrep*r*ble in?ury if the

proceein+s before the 3onor*ble L*bor Arbiter *re *llo9e to procee *n

continue, before the *pplic*tion for the issu*nce of * 9rit of preli8in*ry

in?unction c*n be resole by the 3onor*ble Co88ission!

&!& Petitioner is entitle to the in?unctie relief pr*ye for, *s such relief

consists in restr*inin+ the co88ission or continu*nce of the unl*9ful *ctsco8pl*ine of, specific*lly, the p*y8ent of sep*r*tion p*y to pri*te

responents 9ho 9ere not ille+*lly is8isse! The co88ission *n

continu*nce of the *cts co8pl*ine of penin+ resolution by the 3onor*ble

Co88ission of the 8*tters sub8itte before it 9oul 9or *n in?ustice to

the Petitioner, in iol*tion of his ri+hts *?uic*te in the fin*l *n eecutory

/ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%), *n tenin+ to rener *ny orer or

?u+8ent th*t the 3onor*ble Co88ission 8*y rener in the isposition of

the inst*nt Petition ineffectu*l!

&!1 The ri+ht sou+ht to be protecte by the te8por*ry restr*inin+ orer*n 9rit of in?unction *pplie for is $)#' *'" in esse *s the /ecision

*te /ece8ber (, (#%) h*s lon+ *tt*ine fin*lity by re*son of the f*ilure

to *ppe*l by the p*rties, is le+*lly binin+ *n i88ut*ble!

&! The ri+ht of Petitioner to the enforece8ent of the fin*l *n eecutory

/ecision *te /ece8ber (, (#%) is no9 bein+ irectly thre*tene by the

Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%&! The ur+ent nee for the protection *n

preser*tion of the Petitioners ri+hts 9*rr*nts the i88ei*te issu*nce of the

te8por*ry restr*inin+ orer *n in?unctie 9rit *pplie for in orer to

8*int*in the st*tus >uo *n to presere the ri+hts *n interests of thePetitioner until the 3onor*ble Co88ission h*s resole the inst*nt Petition!

&!' Petitioner is 9illin+ *n *ble to file * bon in the *8ount of .ifty

Thous*n Pesos ;P1#,###!##< *s re>uire in Rule :II Section %# of the

NLRC Rules of Procedure, or such *8ount *s 8*y be fie by the

3onor*ble Co88ission, eecute to the p*rties en?oine, to the effect th*t

Petitioner 9ill p*y to such p*rties *ll *8*+es 9hich they 8*y sust*in by

re*son of the in?unction or te8por*ry restr*inin+ orer shoul the 3onor*ble

Co88ission fin*lly ecie th*t Petitioner is not entitle thereto!

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in li+ht of the fore+oin+, Petitioner 8ost respectfully

pr*ys th*t the 3onor*ble Co88ission issue *n orer ecl*rin+ the Public

Responents Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%& *s null *n oi for h*in+

11


12/12

been issue in irect iol*tion of principles of l*9 *n ?urispruence, in

+r*e *buse of his iscretion *8ountin+ to l*c of ?urisiction!

Petitioner further pr*ys for the i88ei*te issu*nce of * te8por*ry

restr*inin+ orer irectin+ Public Responent to i88ei*tely ce*se *n

esist fro8 conuctin+ further proceein+s in connection 9ith the eecution

of RAB CASE NO! "I-#$-%#&'(-%), in p*rticul*r, to ce*se *n esist fro8

enforcin+ the *ss*ile Orer *te /ece8ber %1, (#%&, *n upon epir*tion

of the te8por*ry restr*inin+ orer, th*t * 9rit of preli8in*ry in?unction be

issue to be effectie penin+ resolution of the inst*nt Petition!

Other ?ust *n e>uit*ble reliefs *re lie9ise pr*ye for!

MOST RESPECT.0LL4 S0BMITTE/!

7*nu*ry %1, (#%1, B*colo City for Cebu City!

MICHELLE VARCA GONAGA

Counsel for the Petitioner

Roll No! &F1$&

MCLE I" No! ##%%%FF6(-1-(#%)

IBP No! #F$)$6%-%(-(#%16B*colo City

PTR No! ###&&$F6%-%(-(#%16B*colo City

(6. St! Therese Bl+!

Cor! RiH*l Locsin Sts!, B*colo City

Tel! No! #)& &)#&F

Copy furnisheD

HON. EECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER

NLRC Re+ion*l Arbitr*tion Br*nch No! "IRos*rio St! B*colo City

ATTY. ROMEO SUBALDO

/oor No! (

(6. Cineple Builin+

Ar*net* St!, B*colo City

EPLANATION

/ue to the l*c of 8essen+eri*l st*ff *n the ur+ency of the *boe

ple*in+, Petitioner 9*s constr*ine to sere the s*8e by re+istere 8*il!

MICHELLE VARCA GONAGA

12

verified petition (nlrc)(toriano)

Documents