5 Magsaysay - Maritime - Corp. - v. - de - Jesus - GR 203943
5 Magsaysay - Maritime - Corp. - v. - de - Jesus - GR 203943
5 Magsaysay - Maritime - Corp. - v. - de - Jesus - GR 203943
DECISION
LEONEN J :
LEONEN, p
Simply put, the execution of the final and executory decision or resolution
of the NLRC shall proceed despite the pendency of a petition for certiorari,
unless it is restrained by the proper court. In the present case, petitioners already
paid Villamater's widow, Sonia, the amount of [P]3,649,800.00, representing the
total and permanent disability award plus attorney's fees, pursuant to the Writ
of Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter. Thereafter, an Order was issued
declaring the case as "closed and terminated." However, although there was no
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
motion for reconsideration of this last Order, Sonia was, nonetheless, estopped
from claiming that the controversy had already reached its end with the
issuance of the Order closing and terminating the case. This is because the
Acknowledgment Receipt she signed when she received petitioners' payment
was without prejudice to the nal outcome of the petition for certiorari pending
before the CA. 5 6
Respondent, in turn, cites Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus 5 7
to substantiate her claim that the Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment Award was akin
to an amicable settlement, rendering the Petition for Certiorari before the Court of
Appeals moot and academic. Career Philippines stated:
As for the "Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment," the Court holds that it
is valid, hence, the "conditional" settlement of the judgment award insofar as it
operates as a final satisfaction thereof to render the case moot and academic.
xxx xxx xxx
Finally, the A davit of Claimant attached to the "Conditional
Satisfaction of Judgment" states:
xxx xxx xxx
5. That I understand that the payment of the judgment award
of US$66,000.00 or its peso equivalent of PhP2,932,974.00
includes all my past, present and future expenses and
claims, and all kinds of bene ts due to me under the
POEA employment contract and all collective bargaining
agreements and all labor laws and regulations, civil law or
any other law whatsoever and all damages, pains and
sufferings in connection with my claim.
6. That I have no further claims whatsoever in any theory of
law against the Owners of MV "Tama Star" because of the
payment made to me. That I certify and warrant that I will not
le any complaint or prosecute any suit of action in the
Philippines, Panama, Japan or any country against the
shipowners and/or released parties herein after receiving the
payment of US$66,000.00 or its peso equivalent of
PhP2,932,974.00 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In effect, while petitioner had the luxury of having other remedies
available to it such as its petition for certiorari pending before the appellate
court, and an eventual appeal to this Court, respondent, on the other hand, could
no longer pursue other claims, including for interests that may accrue during the
pendency of the case. 5 8 (Emphasis in the original)
Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi 5 9 clari ed that this Court ruled
against the employer in Career Philippines not because the parties entered into a
conditional settlement but because the conditional satisfaction of judgment was
"highly prejudicial to the employee." 6 0
The agreement stated that the payment of the monetary award was without
prejudice to the right of the employer to le a petition for certiorari and appeal,
while the employee agreed that she would no longer le any complaint or
prosecute any suit of action against the employer after receiving the payment.
61
Equitable considerations were the underlying basis for the ruling in Career
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Philippines 6 2 and this was accentuated in Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v.
Pelagio, 6 3 which summarized the ruling in Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v.
Legaspi as follows:
Ultimately, in Philippine Transmarine, the Court ruled that since the
agreement in that case was fair to the parties in that it provided available
remedies to both parties, the certiorari petition was not rendered moot despite
the employer's satisfaction of the judgment award, as the respondent had
obliged himself to return the payment if the petition would be granted. 6 4
In the instant case, the parties entered into a compromise agreement when they
executed a Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment Award. 6 5
Article 2028 of the Civil Code de nes a compromise agreement as "a contract
whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end
to one already commenced." Parties freely enter into a compromise agreement, making
it a judgment on the merits of the case with the effect of res judicata upon them. 6 6
While the general rule is that a valid compromise agreement has the power to
render a pending case moot and academic, being a contract, the parties may opt to
modify the legal effects of their compromise agreement to prevent the pending case
from becoming moot. 6 7
In the Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment Award, 6 8 respondent acknowledged
receiving the sum of P3,370,514.40 from petitioners as conditional payment of the
judgment award. Both parties agreed that the payment of the judgment award was
without prejudice to the pending certiorari proceedings before the Court of Appeals
and was only made to prevent the imminent execution being undertaken by respondent
and the National Labor Relations Commission. Finally, in the event the judgment award
of the labor tribunals is reversed by the Court of Appeals or by this Court, respondent
agreed to return whatever she would have received back to petitioners and in the same
vein, if the Court of Appeals or this Court a rms the decisions of the labor tribunals,
petitioners shall pay respondent the balance of the judgment award without need of
demand. 6 9
Respondent, for herself and for her three (3) minor children with Bernardine, then
signed a Receipt of Payment 7 0 where she reiterated the undertakings she took in the
Conditional Satisfaction of Judgement Award.
However, in the A davit of Heirship, 7 1 respondent was prohibited from seeking
further redress against petitioners, making the compromise agreement ultimately
prejudicial to respondent: HSAcaE
3. Id. at 64-76. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and
concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Rodil V.
Zalameda of the First Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 21-22. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and
concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Rodil V.
Zalameda of the First Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
5. Id. at 122-135.
6. Id. at 145-146.
7. Id. at 170.
8. Id. at 65.
9. Id.
14. Id. at 136-143. The Decision docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. (M) NCR-09-13352-08 was
penned by Labor Arbiter Madjayran H. Ajan.
18. Id. at 122-135. The Decision docketed as NLRC NCR LAC No. 08-000481-09 (NLRC NCR No.
(M) 09-13352-08) was penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go and concurred in by
Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco. Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles took no
part.
22. Id.
62. Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. v. Picar, 755 Phil. 901, 907 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza,
Second Division].
67. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Pelagio, 766 Phil. 504, 512 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-
Bernabe, First Division] (citing Morla v. Belmonte, 678 Phil. 102, 116-117 (2011) [Per J.
Leonardo-de Castro, First Division]).
75. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Salazar n, 716 Phil. 693, 705 (2013) [Per Sereno,
C.J., First Division].
76. POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on
Board Ocean Going Vessels (2000), sec. 32-A.
77. POEA Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on
Board Ocean Going Vessels (2000), sec. 32-A (11).
78. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 342 Phil. 352, 365 (1997),
[Per J. Davide, Jr., Third Division].
79. Rollo, pp. 141-142.
82. Maya Farms Employees Organization v. National Labor Relations Commission , 309 Phil.
465, 470 (1994) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "See Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Salazar" in the
original document.