170591-2015-Sara Lee Phils. Inc. v. Macatlang20210424-12-1j3l0b4
170591-2015-Sara Lee Phils. Inc. v. Macatlang20210424-12-1j3l0b4
170591-2015-Sara Lee Phils. Inc. v. Macatlang20210424-12-1j3l0b4
RESOLUTION
PEREZ, J : p
This treats of the 1) Motion for Reconsideration with Urgent Petition for
the Court's Approval of the Pending "Motion for Leave of Court to File and Admit
Herein Statement and Confession of Judgment — to Buy Peace and/or Secure
against any Possible Contingent Liability by Sara Lee Corporation" filed by Sara
Lee Philippines, Inc. (SLPI), Aris Philippines, Inc. (Aris), Sara Lee Corporation
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
(SLC) and Cesar C. Cruz, 2) Motion for Reconsideration filed by Fashion
Accessories Phils., Inc. (FAPI), and 3) Manifestation of Conformity to the Motion
for Leave of Court to File and Admit Confession of Judgment — to Buy Peace
and/or to Secure against any Possible Contingent Liability by Petitioner SLC.
In the Decision dated 4 June 2014, this Court directed SLPI, Aris, SLC,
Cesar Cruz, and FAPI, collectively known as the Corporations, to post P725
Million, in cash or surety bond, within 10 days from the receipt of the Decision.
The Court further nullified the Resolution of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) dated 19 December 2006 for being premature.
B. The Court did not duly rule on the violations of the rights of
due process of Petitioner SLPI as shown by the following:
C. The Court did not duly rule on the violations of the rights of
due process of Petitioner SLC because of the following:
D. The Court did not duly rule on the violations of the rights of
due process of Petitioner Cesar C. Cruz as shown by the following:
F. The Court did not duly rule on the applicability of the final and
executory Decision of Fullido, et al. v. Aris Philippines, Inc. and Cesar C.
Cruz (G.R. No. 185948) with respect to the present consolidated cases
considering the identical facts and issues involved plus the fact that
the Court in Fullido sustained the findings and decisions of three (3)
other tribunals, i.e., the Court of Appeals, the NLRC and the Labor
Arbiter.
H. The Court also did not consider that the Complaints filed by
the respondents are barred by res judicata because of the final and
executory decision rendered by the Voluntary Arbitrator on the
identical facts and issues in the case filed by the labor union
representing the respondents against Petitioner API.
While the case was pending before the appellate court, the NLRC
prematurely issued an order setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter for
being procedurally infirmed.
The Corporations score this Court for failing to consider the ruling in
McBurnie v. Ganzon 4 which purportedly required only the posting of a bond
equivalent to 10% of the monetary award.
The Corporations argue that there was no legal impediment for the NLRC
to issue its 19 December 2006 Resolution vacating the Labor Arbiter's Decision
as no TRO or injunction was issued by the Court of Appeals. The Corporations
assert that the rule on judicial courtesy remains the exception rather than the
rule.
In our Decision, the appeal bond was set at P725 Million after taking into
consideration the interests of all parties. To reiterate, the underlying purpose of
the appeal bond is to ensure that the employer has properties on which he or
she can execute upon in the event of a final, providential award. Thus, non-
payment or woefully insufficient payment of the appeal bond by the employer
frustrates these ends. 17 As a matter of fact, the appeal bond is valid and
effective from the date of posting until the case is terminated or the award is
satisfied. 18 Our Decision highlights the importance of an appeal bond such that
said amount should be the base amount for negotiation between the parties. As
it is, the P342,284,800.00 compromise is still measly compared to the P725
Million bond we set in this case, as it only accounts to approximately 50% of the
reduced appeal bond.
In our Decision, we have already directed the NLRC to act with dispatch in
resolving the merits of the case upon receipt of the cash or surety bond in the
amount of P725 Million within 10 days from receipt of the Decision. If indeed
the parties want an immediate and expeditious resolution of the case, then the
NLRC should be unhindered with technicalities to dispose of the case.
Accepting an outrageously low amount of consideration as compromise
defeats the complainants' legitimate claim.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
In Unicane Workers Union-CLUP v. NLRC , 23 we held the P100,000.00
amount in the quitclaim is unconscionable because the complainants had been
awarded by the labor arbiter more than P2 million. It should have been aware
that had petitioners pursued their case, they would have been assured of
getting said amount, since, absent a perfected appeal, complainants were
already entitled to said amount by virtue of a final judgment. We proceeded to
state that:
Not all quitclaims are per se invalid as against public policy. But,
where there is clear proof that the waiver was wrangled from an
unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are
unconscionable on its face, then the law will step in to annul the
questionable transaction. 24
SO ORDERED.
*
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Del Castillo and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
3. Id. at 2319.
4. G.R. Nos. 178034 and 178117, G.R. Nos. 186984-85, 17 October 2013.
5. G.R. No. 190253, 11 June 2014.
8. Third Division Resolution dated 30 March 2009 with G.R. No. 185948, entitled
"Gabriel Fulido v. Aris Philippines, Inc."
9. 46 Am Jur 2d Judgments § 204, citing Bank of Chatham v. Arendall, 178 Va. 183,
16 S.E.2d 352 (1941), Cheidem Corp. v. Farmer , 449 A.2d 1061 (Del. Super.
Ct. 1982); Citibank, Nat. Ass'n. v. London, 526 F. Supp. 793 (S.D. Tex. 1981).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
10. 171 Phil. 7 (1978).
13. Magbanua v. Uy, 497 Phil. 511, 518 (2005) citing The Learning Child, Inc. v.
Lazaro, 394 Phil. 378, 382 (2000); Calla v. Maglalang , 382 Phil. 138, 143
(2000); Salazar v. Jarabe, 91 Phil. 596, 601 (1952).
14. Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. NLRC, 532 Phil. 531, 545 (2006).
15. Eurotech Hair Systems, Inc. v. Go , 532 Phil. 317, 325 (2006).
16. Rollo (G.R. No. 180319, Vol. III), pp. 2691-2695.
17. Computer Innovation Center v. NLRC , 500 Phil. 573, 584 (2005).
18. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation v. Icao, G.R. No. 196047, 15 January
2014.
24. Id. at 303 citing Periquet v. NLRC, 264 Phil. 1115, 1122 (1990).