G.R. No. 150334 , March 20, 2009.
DOLLY A. OCAMPO, MARIO S. VERONA, ISAGANI O. DAWAL, JOSE ARCADIO R. RELOVA, ARISTOPHANE PALENCIA and ARMANDO HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Former Second Division), HON. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO, HON. MAXIMO B. LIM, EDGARDO C. OREDINA, and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) held a general election of officers from February 17 to 24, 2000. The PALEA Commission on Election (Comelec) canvassed the votes but segregated around 500 ballots and questioned three ballot boxes. Without final results, candidate Nida Villagracia filed a petition with the DOLE-NCR to assume jurisdiction and complete the canvass. While this petition was pending, on March 16, 2000, the PALEA Comelec declared the segregated ballots invalid and proclaimed a set of winners, including Jose T. Peñas III as President and the herein petitioners as other officers. The DOLE-NCR dismissed Villagracia’s petition on March 30, 2000. On the same day, another candidate, Edgardo Oredina, filed a petition to declare a failure of election. The DOLE-NCR granted Oredina’s petition on June 15, 2000, nullifying the election results and proclamation, and ordering a new election under DOLE supervision. The proclaimed winners, including Peñas and the petitioners, appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), which denied the appeal on July 28, 2000. Their motions for reconsideration were denied on August 24, 2000. Only Jose Peñas III filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the BLR resolutions. The CA affirmed the BLR on March 28, 2001, and denied Peñas’s motion for reconsideration on October 12, 2001. Peñas did not elevate the CA decision to the Supreme Court. Instead, the herein petitioners, who were his co-respondents in the DOLE-NCR and BLR cases but did not join his CA petition, filed the present petition for review on certiorari on November 29, 2001.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners who were not parties to the case before the Court of Appeals, but were co-respondents of Peñas in the original action before the DOLE-NCR and the BLR are proper parties to file this petition for review on certiorari.

RULING

No, the petitioners are not proper parties to file this petition for review on certiorari. The Supreme Court ruled that when a party to an original action fails to question an adverse judgment by not filing the proper remedy within the prescribed period, the judgment becomes final and binding as to that party. Petitioners received the BLR Resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on August 31, 2000. They had 60 days, or until October 30, 2000, to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which they failed to do. By not filing their own petition or joining Peñas’s petition before the CA, they acquiesced to the adverse BLR judgment. A petition for review under Rule 45 is a continuation of the original suit, and since petitioners were not parties to the original suit (Peñas’s certiorari petition before the CA), they have no personality to continue it through an appeal. The Court found no exceptional grounds to relax procedural rules. Furthermore, the intra-union controversy was rendered moot as the contested five-year term had expired, and petitioners were estopped from pursuing the petition as they had participated in formulating new election guidelines with the DOLE-NCR following the order for a new election. The petition was denied for lack of merit.