GEMMA SUPERIO AND GLORIA MIANA, PETITIONERS, VS. DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EIGHTH DIVISION, RESPONDENTS.
INTING, J.:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED and the assailed Decision dated December 30, 2010 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
The facts are as follows: Petitioners Gemma Superio (Superio for brevity) and Gloria Miana (Miana) are former employees of private respondent DOLE Philippines, a corporation engaged in the growing and processing of pineapple for local and export markets.
Petitioner Superio started working with the private respondent company on August 2, 2004 as a trimmer in the Fruit Receiving Preparation Department.
Due to her various absences without permission (AWOP) wherein she was served with notices of charge which required her to submit a written explanation on her violations of company rules and regulations, particularly:
DPC # 1.1 – Absence without permission on any calendar day including Sunday, whether singly or consecutively, without reasonable excuse, except on legal holidays and on the employee’s established rest days, within a one-year period with the following penalties:
DPC # 7 – Violation of Company Policy, Rule or Regulation, Department Rule or Regulation, Departmental Rule or Regulation, within a one-year period.
After the conduct of investigation, private respondent furnished petitioner Superio a notice of termination of employment for cause dated July 3, 2008. Petitioner however, appealed her dismissal begging for compassion. The private respondent granted it and ordered for her reinstatement.
Despite the second chance given by the company to petitioner Superio, she continued to absent herself from work without asking for permission on the following dates: October 17, 20, 23-25, 2008; November 12, 20-22, 24-29, 2008 and January 20-23, 26-30, 2009 which prompted the private respondent to send her a Notice of Charge on March 4, 2009. The notice was duly received by her on even date. An administrative investigation was conducted. Thereafter, the private respondent found her guilty of violating company rules and regulations on AWOP and a Notice of Termination of Employment was served upon her on March 23, 2009. She however, refused to acknowledge receipt of the notice. Subsequently, petitioner Superio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with ancillary prayers for reinstatement, backwages, damages and attorney’s fees, as well as money claims for proportionate 13th month pay and bottom line bonus before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII in General Santos City.
In so far as petitioner Gloria Miana is concerned, she started working with the private respondent’s company on March 5, 2005 as harvester in the Fruit Receiving Preparation Department.
Notices of Charge dated October 12, 14 and 16, 2009, respectively were served to petitioner Miana for absenting herself on various occasions without prior permission. She replied through two (2) explanation letters both dated November 6, 2009 with three (3) medical certificates to support her absences. However, private respondent company found her explanations unavailing and thereby dismissed her from employment on December 7, 2009. A Notice of Termination of Employment was sent to her last known address via registered mail by the private respondent. But petitioner Miana failed to claim the mail for three (3) consecutive times. Thus, the mail matter was returned to the private respondent.
Upon learning of her dismissal, petitioner Miana filed a complaint for illegal dismissal together with petitioner Superio before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII in General Santos City.
On December 30, 2010, the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, General Santos City, through Executive Labor Arbiter Tomas B. Bautista, Jr. rendered a decision in favor of private respondent company and against the petitioners dismissing the case for lack of merit.
Dissatisfied with the Executive Labor Arbiter’s decision, petitioners filed an appeal before the public respondent NLRC Eighth Division in Cagayan de Oro City. On May 27, 2011, the public respondent rendered a Resolution dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter. Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC, Eighth Division on August 24, 2011.
Aggrieved, defendants-appellants interposed the present appeal and forthwith raised the sole issue of:
I
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS VALID GROUND IN PETITIONERS’ DISMISSAL.
In a Minute Resolution[5] issued by this Court on November 6, 2012, the Court declared the instant petition submitted for decision.
On September 12, 2013, this Court issued a Resolution[6] referring the instant controversy to the Philippine Center for Mediation (PMC) pursuant to A.M. No. 04-3-15 SC PHILJA dated March 23, 2004 (Resolution No. 04-04), the Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Mediation in the Court of Appeals.
Subsequently, on December 12, 2013, Court of Appeals-Mindanao Station PMC Coordinator Melody Ucang Salise filed an Appellate Court Mediation’s Report.[7] The relevant portion of which states:
“On the said mediation conference, the case was successfully mediated.
WHEREFORE, the PMC prays of this Honorable Court of Appeals to render judgment pursuant to the terms of the Compromise Agreement.
The case is hereby submitted to the Twenty-Second Division and back to appellate court proceedings.”
The attached Compromise Agreement[8] between petitioners Gemma Superio and Gloria Miana, represented by Domingo A. Azores and private respondent DOLE Philippines, Inc. represented by Atty. Rene Almero before the Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station, Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) with the assistance of Appellate Court Mediator, Atty. Mateo G. Delegencia, reads:
“After a lengthy discussion, the parties were able to effect a partial settlement with following terms and conditions:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have mutually and voluntarily agreed to the above stipulations, and sign this Agreement, at the Philippine Mediation Center, Court of Appeals, on this 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013 for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court.
In the Compromise Agreement, the parties appended their respective Special Power of Attorney[9] authorizing their representatives to attend, appear and represent them before the PMC-CA as well as to enter into an amicable settlement, negotiate, sign, and execute any and other documents required by the PMC-CA.
Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that “contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions, as they may deem convenient, provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.” A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced.[10] It is an accepted, even desirable and encouraged, practice in courts of law and administrative tribunals.[11]
The parties are instructed that a compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter already under litigation, like in this case, is a judicial compromise. Having judicial mandate and entered as its determination of the controversy, such judicial compromise has the force and effect of a judgment. It transcends its identity as a mere contract between the parties, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, a compromise agreement that has been made and duly approved by the court attains the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may be issued unless the agreement receives the approval of the court where the litigation is pending and compliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed.[12]
Generally favored in law, such agreement is a bilateral act or transaction that is binding on the contracting parties and is expressly acknowledged by the Civil Code as a juridical agreement between them. Provided it is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, it is immediately executory.[13] To be valid, a compromise agreement is likewise required by law to be based on real claims and to be actually agreed upon in good faith.[14] In this case, both conditions are present. The claims of the parties are valid, and the agreement done without any fraud or vice of consent.
WHEREFORE, finding that the Compromise Agreement dated December 12, 2013 between petitioners Gemma Superio and Gloria Miana, represented by Domingo A. Azores and private respondent DOLE Philippines, Inc. represented by Atty. Rene Almero, is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy, this Court APPROVES it.
Judgment based upon the Compromise Agreement dated December 12, 2013 between petitioners Gemma Superio and Gloria Miana, represented by Domingo A. Azores and private respondent DOLE Philippines, Inc. represented by Atty. Rene Almero is RENDERED, and the afore-quoted terms and conditions are deemed an integral part of the dispositive portion of this Decision. Parties are ORDERED to faithfully comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement.
Accordingly, the Division Clerk of Court is hereby directed to issue an entry of judgment pursuant to Rule VII, Sec. 1, par. (b) of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Camello (Chairperson) and Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2–14.
[2] Ibid., pp. 18-24.
[3] Ibid., p. 25.
[4] Ibid., p. 24.
[5] Ibid., p. 200.
[6] Ibid., pp. 202-203.
[7] Ibid., p. 204.
[8] Ibid., p. 208.
[9] Ibid., p. 207; pp. 208-209.
[10] Article 2028, Civil Code of the Philippines; Harold v. Aliba, G.R. No. 130864, October 2, 2007, 534 SCRA 478, 486.
[11] DMG Industries, Inc. v. Philippine American Investments Corporation, G.R. No. 174114, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 682, 687.
[12] Viesca v. Gilinsky, G.R. No. 171698, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 533, 557-558.
[13] MIAA v. ALA Industries Corp., G.R. No. 147349, February 13, 2004 citing Amarante v. CA, 232 SCRA 104, 108, May 3, 1994, v. CA, 321 Phil. 224, 231, December 4, 1995, Article 1306 of the Civil Code and Rosaura v. Judge Villanueva Jr., 389 Phil. 699, 706, June 26, 2000.
[14] National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124267, January 17, 2005.