G.R. No. 151922. April 7, 2005
AMELITA M. ESCAREAL, RUBIROSA VERSOZA and DAVE FRANCISCO M. VELASCO, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., PATRIA T. CHIONG, JORGE MA. CUI, JR., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (3rd Division), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, regular cabin crew members of Philippine Airlines (PAL), were scheduled for a Manila-Singapore flight on April 3, 1997. During the pre-flight briefing, they were informed of a departure delay. Citing a provision in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) guaranteeing a minimum rest period, petitioners, through their union representative, informed PAL of their intention to back out from the flight to assert this right. An agreement was reached for them to be relieved in Manila. They returned their per diem and coordinated with the scheduling office. The flight departed with a replacement crew.
Subsequently, PAL administratively charged petitioners with offenses including refusal to take assignment. They were found guilty and suspended for one year without pay. Petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, declaring the suspension illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. PAL appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter. Both parties filed separate petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the final and executory decision of one division of the Court of Appeals in the petition filed by PAL constitutes res judicata and bars the petition filed by the employees.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the application of res judicata. The core legal logic is that when two parties, dissatisfied with the same NLRC decision, file separate petitions for certiorari raising identical issues, the first decision rendered by the appellate court that becomes final and executory settles the controversy conclusively. In this case, PAL filed its petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 54850) first. The Court of Appeals’ Thirteenth Division dismissed PAL’s petition, thereby reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s favorable decision for the employees. This judgment became final and executory on June 26, 2000.
The subsequent petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 59570) filed by the employees, while initially granted by a different division, was correctly set aside. The doctrine of res judicata requires: (1) a final former judgment; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) a judgment on the merits; and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. All these elements were present. The subject matter—the legality of the one-year suspension—and the causes of action were identical. The fact that the employees’ petition was still pending when PAL’s case became final is immaterial. The finality of the judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 54850 precluded any further adjudication on the same matter, promoting judicial stability and conclusiveness of litigation. The Court emphasized that a final judgment is immutable and unalterable.