G.R. No. 106705 September 26, 1994
Philippine Dairy Products Corporation and San Miguel Corporation — Magnolia Dairy Products Division, petitioners, vs. Voluntary Arbitrator Tito F. Genilo of the Department of Labor and Employment and the National Organization of Workingmen (NOWM), respondents.

FACTS

This case involves the execution of a final and executory Supreme Court Resolution dated August 30, 1989, in G.R. No. 85577. In that prior case, the Court affirmed the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision which declared certain workers supplied by labor contractors to be regular employees of petitioners (San Miguel/Philippine Dairy) and ordered their reinstatement with backwages. The Court’s Resolution explicitly stated that the regularization benefit should apply to all qualified employees similarly situated, not just the original complainants. Upon remand for execution, the Voluntary Arbitrator, after hearings where petitioners failed to appear, issued an order approving lists of workers submitted by the union for regularization and reinstatement.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing denial of due process due to alleged lack of notice of the execution hearings. They also contended that the order was arbitrary as it included workers not parties to the original case and that positions for reinstatement no longer existed. The Voluntary Arbitrator denied the motion, finding that notices were properly sent and that the Supreme Court’s directive to regularize all similarly situated employees was clear. Subsequently, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari, additionally alleging that the Voluntary Arbitrator was biased and should have inhibited himself.

ISSUE

Whether the Voluntary Arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the execution orders and in refusing to inhibit himself from the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the execution orders, the Court held that the Voluntary Arbitrator was merely implementing the final and executory judgment in G.R. No. 85577. That prior Resolution had conclusively ruled that the regularization order applied to all similarly situated employees, not merely the original complainants. The Arbitrator’s act of approving the lists of workers for regularization, especially in the absence of opposition from petitioners who failed to attend hearings despite notice, was a proper exercise of his ministerial duty to execute the judgment. His findings that petitioners continued to hire new employees, thereby negating their claim of abolished positions, were supported by evidence.
Regarding the charge of bias and the motion for inhibition, the Court found it unmeritorious. The Arbitrator was carrying out a directive of the Supreme Court, and his subsequent order which chastised the union for intimidating tactics negated any claim of partiality in their favor. The motion for inhibition, filed years after the case commenced and long after the Court’s affirmance, was deemed untimely. The Voluntary Arbitrator’s continuation of the case to ensure full execution was in the best interest of both parties.