Immutable and unalterable decision

There should be an end to litigation by the same parties and their privies over a subject, once it is fully, finally and fairly adjudicated. This is the reason behind the principle of res judicata applied to this case of a labor union (MSM) and its fifteen officers.

MSM and its officers and members were sued by their employer (PC) for unfair labor pactices and damages before the Labor Arbiter. The case stemmed from a series of actions done by the unionists who were demanding the ouster of the PC production manager. The first happened one early morning about 8:30 when about 200 to 206 officers and members of MSM abandoned their work and picketed the streets fronting the company premises. The second happened the following day when the employees resumed their work but nonetheless persisted with their illegal activities such as work slow down and sabotage that disrupted and paralyzed the company’s operations and productions. PC alleged that the unionists committed acts violative of Art. 282 of the Labor Code and their Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The unionists denied the complaint. They claimed that they did not stage a picket but left the workplace to attend and testify at a barangay hearing involving another member and it was with the permission of the company’s assistant manager.

After due hearing the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the strike or walk-out illegal and loss of employment status of the fifteen union officers. The NLRC, on appeal, upheld the illegality of the strike or walkout but nevertheless ordered the reinstatement of the fifteen officers. This NLRC decision was appealed by both parties but was eventually and finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. 123976. The SC said the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of the union officers.

When MSM and the officers sought the execution of the decision, PC asked the NLRC to quash the writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter. But the NLRC denied this motion so the arbiter issued an alias writ. Undaunted, PC asked the arbiter to recall and quash the alias writ on the ground that supervening events have occurred which rendered the execution unjust. The arbiter thus quashed the writ. But the NLRC set aside the arbiter’s ruling and ordered the latter to execute the decision reinstating the fifteen unionists as it is already final and executory.

PC then went again to the Supreme Court on certiorari ascribing to the NLRC grave abuse of discretion for ordering the reinstatement of the fifteen employees despite the supervening events. The SC remanded the case to the CA for appropriate action. Subsequently the CA rendered a decision affirming the ruling of the NLRC on the illegality of the strike but modified it by declaring that the employees can no longer be reinstated because they have lost their employment status. Was the CA correct?

No. The CA still passed upon the same issue already disposed off by the Supreme Court in GR 123976 declaring that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it declared the strike illegal but ordered the reinstatement of the fifteen officers. Verily, the CA modified what should have been an immutable and unalterable decision. It disregarded the doctrine of res judicata. The issue of whether the fifteen officers of MSM should be reinstated to their former positions (despite the findings that they have participated in an illegal strike or walkout) may no longer be re-litigated.

When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains un-reversed should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. ( Malayang Samahan etc. et al. vs. Pinakamasarap etc. et.al, G.R. 139068, January 16, 2004)