DEMETRIO DENDEN, JR., RICARDO R. BACUS, JERRY BUHIAN, EFREN B. CANDELASA, FERNANDO CARPENTERO, ALBERTO R. CUETO, REYMUNDO CUETO, RONALD DINGCONG, CHRISTOPHER Z. EMPOC, ROBERTO N…
DE GUIA-SALVADOR, R., J.:
At bench is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks to nullify and set aside the Decision dated June 5, 2012[1] of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No. 12-17100-10, the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the respondents’ appeal is GRANTED. The Decision
appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one issued DISMISING
the complaint.SO ORDERED.”
Likewise assailed is the NLRC’s Resolution dated July 6, 2012[2] which denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of said NLRC Decision.
The Facts
Private respondent Archipelago Builders (Archipelago)
is a duly organized single proprietorship engaged in construction
business, while its co-respondent John Paul Pe is its Over-All Project
Coordinator. On the other hand, the seventeen (17) petitioners, namely:
Demetrio Denden Jr., Ricardo R. Bacus, Jerry Buhian, Efren B. Candelasa,
Fernando Carpentero, Alberto R. Cueto, Reymundo Cueto, Ronald Dingcong,
Christopher Z. Empoc, Roberto Ganob, Antonino S. Leyte, Ronnie S.
Leyte, Carlos C. Miñoza Jr., Gilbert Ompoc, Judito Peloramas, Jose
Terez, and Nelson Tesio, are former employees of private respondents who
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the latter.
Petitioners alleged that from 1989 to 2007, Archipelago hired
them as laborers, carpenters, helpers and masons. On November 2, 2010,
while performing their assigned duties, petitioners were required by
Archipelago’s timekeeper to sign a paper stating that they will be paid
their 13th month pay, but that they will be transferred to a
sub-contractor effective the following day. As a result of such
transfer, they would receive wages ranging from P300.00 to P350.00,
which were less than their previous wage. Upon verification with
Archipelago the next day, petitioners were told that they were already
transferred to a sub-contractor.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed on
November 3, 2010 a complaint for illegal dismissal and for payment of
separation pay, proportionate 13th month pay and service
incentive leave pay before the the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) NCR MUNTAPARLAS Field Office in Las Piñas City. After the
conciliation proceedings held before the said DOLE office on November
17, 2010, petitioners executed a Quitclaim and Release for and in
consideration of the sum of P167,079.45 before the DOLE-NCR Director II
Benvenuto C. Algere. Despite such amicable settlement, petitioners filed
on December 3, 2010 another complaint for constructive dismissal and
non-payment of separation pay before the Labor Arbiter. Petitioners
maintained that they were regular employees of Archipelago as they have
performed work necessary and desirable for the its business for more
than one (1) year. They also claimed that what was settled before the
DOLE field office was their money claims, but not their complaint for
illegal dismissal.
For their part, private respondents claimed
that petitioners were construction project workers of Archipelago.
Sometime in November 2010, petitioners were informed by Archipelago’s
project manager that the phase of the construction of the C5 Ridgewood
Tower project for which their services were engaged was about to be
completed. Petitioners were also informed that their engagement as
construction project workers will cease upon completion of said phase of
the project. Thereafter, petitioners no longer reported for work even
if there were still some work to be done. Later on, private respondents
received a notice/invitation from the DOLE-NCR MUNTAPARLES Field Office
regarding the complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims filed by
petitioners. Efforts to settle the case were pursued in earnest and
favorably resulted in the payment of petitioners’ claims and the
execution of a Quitclaim and Release for and in consideration of the sum
of P167,079.45. Private respondents thus argued that with the amicable
settlement reached by the parties before the DOLE field office, the
complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter should be
dismissed.
In its July 25, 2011 Decision, the Labor Arbiter ruled that it
has jurisdiction to hear the case considering that what was decided
before the DOLE field office were the money claims of petitioners, but
not the issue of their illegal dismissal. Anent such termination issue,
the Labor Arbiter found that petitioners were regular employees, and not
project employees as claimed by private respondents. Thus, it held that
petitioners were constructively dismissed when they were transferred to
a sub-contractor where they would receive less than what they were
previously paid by private respondents. However, due to the perceived
strained relations caused by the instant proceedings, it awarded in
favor of petitioners separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, as well
as backwages.[3]
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and
dismissed petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal. In its June 5,
2012 Decision, the NLRC held that the issues raised by petitioners have
already been tackled and resolved in the proceedings before the DOLE-NCR
MUNTAPARLAS Field Office. It noted that the settlement agreement before
the DOLE is considered final and binding as between the parties
thereto, unless there is prima facie evidence that said
settlement agreement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or
coercion, which vices were not even raised by petitioners in the
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Dissatisfied with the NLRC
Decision, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the NLRC
denied it in the Resolution dated July 6, 2012. Hence, petitioners filed
the instant petition for certiorari.
The Issues
Petitioners seek the nullification of public respondent NLRC’s
assailed Decision and Resolution on the affirmative of the following
issues, to wit:
“I
WHETHER THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL
DISMISSAL, THE ISSUE HAVING BEEN SETTLED IN A QUITCLAIM EXECUTED BEFORE
THE DOLE.II
WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED AND CONSEQUENTLY ENTITLED TO THEIR MONETARY CLAIMS.”[4]
The Court’s Ruling
We find the petition bereft of merit.
A contract whereby parties avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced by making reciprocal concessions,[5] a compromise agreement is a bilateral act or transaction that is expressly acknowledged as a juridical agreement under the Civil Code of the Philippines.[6]
To be valid, the same is merely required under the law to be based on
real claims and actually agreed upon in good faith by the parties
thereto.[7] With respect to
matters definitely stated therein or which, by implication from its
terms, should be deemed to have been included therein, the general rule
is that a compromise has the effect and authority of res judicata upon the parties even if the agreement has not been judicially approved.[8]
Article 277 of the Labor Code states:
Art. 227. Compromise Agreements. – Any compromise settlement, including those involving labor standard case, voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the
regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and binding
upon the parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or
any court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein
except in cases of non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion. [Emphasis supplied]
Under the above provision of the Labor Code, any compromise
settlement voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of
the Bureau of Labor Relations or the regional office of the Department
of Labor and Employment shall be final and binding upon the parties.[9]
The assistance of the BLR or the regional office of the DOLE in the
execution of a compromise settlement is a basic requirement,[10] without which there can be no valid compromise settlement.[11]
In this case, petitioners filed on November 3, 2010 a
complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims before the
DOLE-NCR MUNTAPARLES Field Office. Private respondents were then sent
by the said office a Notice/Invitation for conciliation-mediation
assistance.[12] In the course
of the proceedings before the DOLE field office, a settlement agreement
was reached between the parties, which culminated in the signing of the
Quitclaim and Release[13] with the assistance of DOLE NCR Director II Benvenuto C. Alegere,[14] to wit:
“COMES NOW, the undersigned complainant(s) in the above entitled case before this Office, respectfully state(s):
That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVENTY NINE PESOS 045/100 (P167,079.45),
in settlement of my/our claims; as financial assistance and/or
gratuitously given by my/our employer receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged to my/our complete and full satisfaction, I/we
hereby release and discharge the ARCHIPELAGO BUILDERS and/or its
officers from any and all claims by way of wages, separation pay,
overtime pay, differential pay, or otherwise as maybe due me/us incident
to my/our past employment with said establishment. I/we hereby state
further that I/we have no more claim, right or action of whatsoever
nature past, present or contingent against the said respondent and/or
its officers. x x x ” [Emphasis supplied]
Notwithstanding the foregoing settlement agreement, petitioners
filed another complaint for constructive dismissal before the Labor
Arbiter on December 3, 2010.
Petitioners contend that they never
waived all their claims against private respondents when they executed
the Quitclaim and Release because only the issues of non-payment of the
13th month pay and of the service incentive leave pay were
tackled and determined before the DOLE field office. Insisting that the
matter of illegal dismissal was not included as a subject of the
settlement agreement, petitioners posit that private respondents cannot
evade payment of separation pay and other monetary claims arising from
their unlawful termination. Citing the fact that they merely finished
grade school or high school education, petitioners add that the
contents of the quitclaim were never explained to them and that they
signed it merely as proof of their receipt of their 13th month pay and
service incentive leave pay. Petitioners also discredit the quitclaim
for being a contract of adhesion where the stipulations were already
prepared in such a way that it cannot be considered as a product of
mutual agreement, as it left them with no other option than to adhere to
its terms. Petitioners further assert that they never intended to
relinquish their right to litigate their action for unlawful dismissal.
Petitioners’ contentions are without merit.
Under the DOLE D.O. No. 107, Series of 2010 [Guidelines
on the Single Entry Approach Prescribing a 30-day Mandatory
Conciliation-Mediation Services for All Labor and Employment Cases)],
it is the duty of the DOLE official assisting the parties in the
conciliation proceedings to validate their respective positions as well
as the reliefs sought. Section 9 of D.O. No. 107 provides:
“Section 9. Conduct of Conciliation-Mediation. – The
Desk Officer shall exert best efforts to assist the parties to arrive at
a settlement. In facilitating the conciliation meeting, he/she shall:
There is no dispute that the DOLE field office has jurisdiction
over conciliation-mediation proceedings in cases of illegal dismissal
and non-payment of separation pay. Section 6 of D.O. No 107 states:
“Section 6. Issues Subject of the 30-day Mandatory Conciliation-Mediation.
– Except as expressly excluded herein, all issues arising from labor
and employment shall be subject to the 30-day mandatory
conciliation-mediation, which may include the following:
In cases of voluntary settlement, the DOLE officer is explicitly
mandated under Section 10 of DOLE D.O. No. 107 to reduce the settlement
agreement into writing, to have the parties understand its contents, and
to have them sign it in his presence. Section 10 states:
“Section 10. Settlement Agreement. – In case of
voluntary settlement, the Desk Officer shall reduce the agreement into
writing, have the parties understand the contents thereof, sign the same
in his/her presence, and attest the document to be the true and
voluntary acts of the parties. Any settlement agreement reached by the
parties before the Desk Officer shall be final and binding.In case of partial settlement and/or partial execution of
certain issues, all unresolved issues shall be referred pursuant to
Section 15.”
In the case at bench, it is important to note that the
conciliation/mediation proceedings between the parties prior to the
signing of such settlement agreement were conducted not only in the
presence of, but with the assistance of DOLE official as requested by
petitioners themselves when they filed their complaint before the DOLE
field office. Likewise, there is no allegation on record, let alone any
evidence presented, to show that the settlement agreement was obtained
through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion. Neither is there any
allegation that the DOLE official who assisted in the
conciliation/mediation proceedings was remiss in his duties as
prescribed under Sections 9 and 10 of DOLE D.O. No. 107. It is therefore
presumed that the assisting DOLE official performed his duties in a
regular manner and explained to petitioners the contents, significance
and consequences of the Quitclaim and Release.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty under Section 3 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court is made in the
context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the
performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the
performance thereof.[15] It
applies to public officers from the highest to the lowest in the service
of the Government, departments, bureaus, offices, and/or its political
subdivisions.[16] The
presumption prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. Unless the presumption is
rebutted, it becomes conclusive.[17]
In the present case, We note the absence of any clear and convincing
evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in favor of the DOLE
official who assisted in the settlement of the termination dispute
pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 of DOLE D.O. No. 107. Hence, the
Quitclaim and Release signed by the petitioners before the DOLE official
is valid and effective under the law. Such settlement agreement is
final and binding upon the parties, and effectively bars the complaint
for illegal dismissal petitioners filed before the Labor Arbiter.
On petitioners’ contention that the Quitclaim and Release is void for
being a mere contract of adhesion, it is well-settled that such contract
may be struck down as void or unenforceable, for being subversive of
public policy, only when the weaker party is imposed
upon in dealing with the dominant bargaining party and is reduced to the
alternative of taking it or leaving it, completely deprived of the
opportunity to bargain on equal footing. However, in view of the legal
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor
of the DOLE official, which petitioners failed to overturn by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary, they cannot be heard to complain
of being ignorant of the contents and significance of the settlement
agreement or having been deceived or forced into consenting to it.
On petitioners’ contention that the consideration for the subject
quitclaim is unreasonable in view of their length of service with
Archipelago, We find such argument without basis. Even as petitioners
claimed in their position paper that they were hired on various dates
from 1989 to 2007, there is nothing in the records to substantiate such
allegations. As aptly noted by the Labor Arbiter, the only evidence
petitioners presented to prove their length of service is the
company-issued identification cards, which indicate only the dates of
their issuance.
We likewise disagree with petitioners’ contention that the
issue of illegal dismissal was not included in the settlement agreement
arrived at before the DOLE-NCR MUNTAPARLES Field Office. The Quitclaim
and Release executed by the parties before the DOLE Office arose from
the complaint[18] filed by petitioners charging private respondents with the following causes of action:
In the Minutes of the Meeting[19] held on November 17, 2010 before the DOLE office, the subject matter of the complaint was explicitly stated thus:
“The complainants are claiming that they were illegally dismissed. Likewise, they have not received their thirteenth month pay (13th) and 5 days incentive leave (SIL).
It was agreed by both parties that settlement will be done next hearing, on 24 November 2010, 10 AM.”
Contrary to petitioners argument that the settlement agreement
they executed before the DOLE Office is limited to the non-payment of
13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, a simple
perusal of their complaint and the minutes of the meeting shows that
the issues of illegal dismissal and the payment of separation pay were
explicitly raised and considered in the conciliation/mediation
proceedings before the said DOLE office. Significantly, no less than the
Quitclaim and Release stated in clear and unmistakable terms that for
and in consideration of P167,079.45, petitioners released and discharged
private respondents from any and all of their claims which included,
among others matters, their separation pay, and that they have no more
claim, right or action of whatsoever nature whether past, present of
contingent against their employers.
The cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts, such as
the subject settlement agreement, is to the effect that their literal
meaning should be applied if the terms thereof are clear and leave no
doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties.[20] Because unambiguous provisions need no further interpretation[21] and leave no room for construction,[22]
We find that NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding
the terms of the Quitclaim and Release, and accordingly dismissing
petitioners complaint for illegal dismissal filed before the Labor
Arbiter.
In the context of petitions for certiorari like the one at
bench, grave abuse of discretion is understood to be such capricious and
whimsical exercise of jurisdiction as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction.[23] It is
tantamount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility.[24]
For failure of petitioner to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the NLRC, We find no reason to disturb, much less nullify,
its assailed decision and resolution.
WHEREFORE, the petition at bench is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Garcia and Bueser, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo. pp. 196-202
[2] Rollo. pp. 217-220
[3] Ibid.
[4] Rollo. p. 9
[5] Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 189, 199
[6] Chua Lao vs. Macapugay, 312 SCRA 380, 384
[7] Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 647 676
[8] Cebu International Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 488, 501
[9] Galicia vs. NLRC , 276 SCRA 381(1997)
[10] Labor vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 183 (1995)
[11] Mindoro Lumber and Hardware vs. Bacay, 459 SCRA 714 (2005)
[12] Rollo. p. 67
[13] Id. pp. 70-72, Annexes “4”, “5” and “6”
[14] Id. pp. 70-72
[15] People v. Kamad, 610 SCRA 295 (2010)
[16] General Milling Corporation v. Casio, 615 SCRA 13 (2010)
[17] Baygar, Sr. v. Panontongan, 581 SCRA 565 (2009)
[18] Rollo. p. 83
[19] Rollo. p. 69, Annex “3
[20] Wood Technology Corporation vs. Equitable Banking Corporation, 451 SCRA 724; Pichel vs. Alonso, 111 SCRA 341, 349
[21] Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. vs. Holy Cross of Davao Faculty Association, G.R. No. 156098. June 27, 2005
[22] Heirs of the Late Spouses Aurelio and Esperanza Balite vs. Lim, G.R. No. 152168. December 10, 2004
[23] Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 679, 682
[24] J.L. Bernardo Construction vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 24, 34