PETROPHIL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. BLAS OPLE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AND MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA ESSO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review the order of the Minister of Labor
dated March 16, 1981 issued in Case No. 64-IPA, entitled “Philippine
Federation of Petro­leum Workers (PFPW) and Malayang Manggagawa sa Esso,
Petitioners, versus Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. (now Petrophil Corporation), Respondent”,^[1]
on the ground that the Minister of Labor and Employment exceeded his
jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of all workers belonging to the
respondent, Malayang Manggagawa sa Esso (MME) who were terminated by ESSO on
December 8, 1967 and that said Minister abused his discretion in finding that
the 1968 and 1971 bargaining agreements did not validly supersede the 1963
bargaining agreement and consequently
ordering the reinstatement of assistant tank truck drivers and helpers and
fillers and the restoration of meal and transportation allowances to workers
assigned to MIA and JOCASP Units.

After the respondent; Minister of Labor and Employment, had filed
his comment, the petitioner and private respondent submitted on December 4,
1981 the following:

“COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

“COME NOW petitioner Petrophil Corpo­ration, hereinafter
referred to as CORPORATION, and respondent MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA ESSO,
hereinafter referred to as UNION, by way of amicably settling their diffe­rences
and court cases respectfully submit this compromise agreement, under the
following terms and conditions:

“1.  It is the intention of the parties to this agreement who presently have
cases against each other pending in court or in other government agencies for
causes of action which occurred or accrued during the previous management of
the COR­PORATION, to terminate said cases and settle their disputes amicably;

“2.  Each of the party to this Compro­mise
Agreement represents that it has the necessary authority and power to enter
into, agree, and accept the terms and conditions of this settlement;

“3.  In consideration of the foregoing premises,
the parties hereto agree as follows:

“a.  The CORPORATION shall pay over to the National
Labor Relations Commission for distribution to the employees involved in the
cases mentioned above whether presently member of the UNION or not – the amount
of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P750,000.00) Philippine Currency, as
full settlement of any and all claims which said employees and their UNION now
have or may have against the CORPORATION arising from this case and other cases
by reason of the employment or termina­tion by the CORPORATION’S predecessor-in­-interest
of said employees. Annex “A”
of this Compromise Agreement lists the employees who were members of the UNION
at the time the causes of action/herein accrued. Annexes B to B-24 are the notarized Confirmation of Authorization
and Ratification of Compromise Agreement signed by members of the UNION and
submitted hereto as part of this Agreement. The distribution of this settlement
amount mentioned herein after deducting therefrom all easonable litigation
expenses or lawful obligations as may have been properly incurred by the UNION in connection with these cases,
shall be made by the NLRC to those employees listed in Annex “A” in a
manner that appears equitable and just in its judgment, taking
into account any re-employment wish the Corpo­ration.

“b.  The
CORPORATION and the UNION hereby agree to consider withdrawn and dismissed all
cases filed by the one against the other or their respective officers now pending in court or any other government agency, to
wit:

Case No.                                          Tribunal

1. G.R. NO. L-26346,                              Supreme Court

L-26355 and L-36545

(Petition for contempt)

2. G.R. NO. 56704                                  Supreme Court

(Petition for certiorari)

(Appeal in Case No. 64-IPA)

3. 4289-ULP (Complaint                         National Labor

for unfair labor                                     Relations
Commission

practice)

4. 4301-ULP
(Complaint                         National
Labor

for unfair labor                                     Relations Commission

practice)

including such other cases not enumerated
above that might have arisen in connection with the employment relations
between the employees and the CORPORATIONS’ predecessor­-in-interest, in
support of the total settlement objective of this compromise;

“c.  This agreement shall not prejudice the
employment status of any member or for­mer member of the UNION who may be
presently employed in the CORPORATION.

“4.  Parties also agree that this com­promise shall
serve as basis for the dismissal with prejudice of the instant case as well as
of all other pending cases before any other court or government agency, and
shall bar any other claim,
present, future, or contingent, that one now has or may have against the other.

“5.  The UNION and its members, in accepting this
total settlement, waived and relinquished forever all claims against the
CORPORATION and further hold the CORPORATION free and harmless from any claim
of any member or former member as well as claims of third parties whatsoever,

“WHEREFORE, the parties hereto respectfully move this
Honorable Court to approve this compromise as judgment in this case and as
basis for dismissal of other related cases,

“Manila, July 27, 1981.

“PETROPHIL CORPORATION                               “MALAYANG
MANGGAGAWA

SA ESSO

By:                                                                            By:

(SGD) ANTONIO V.
DEL ROSARIO                       (SGD)
AMADO FUENTE

President                                                            President

Assisted by:                                                              Assisted
by:

(SGD) ESTELITO P.
MENDOZA                             (SGD)
JOSE O. ESPINAS

Solicitor
General                                                   Legal
Counsel

(SGD) ROBERTO E.
SOBERANO                         (SGD)
PABLO CASTILLON

Assistant Solicitor
General                                         Legal
Counsel

(SGD) EDGARDO L.
KILAYKO

Solicitor”^[2]

The foregoing compromise agreement is not contrary to law, public
policy or good morals. The same is
hereby approved.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in accor­dance with
the compromise agreement and the parties are ordered to comply with the terms
and conditions thereof.

The cases pending in this Court mentioned in the compromise
agreement, namely, G.R. No. L-26346, G.R. No. L-26355, G.R. No. L-36545 and this
case, G.R. No. 56704, are ordered dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, and Plana, JJ., concur.

Guerrero, J., no part.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 17-25.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 112-115, Annexes “A” and
“B to B-24” of the Compromise Agreement are attached to the record.