G.R. No. L-24375 May 18, 1978
TAN BENG, owner and manager of NEW YORK GROCERY, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, JOSE NALDO, JULIANO E. ESTELLA, DOMINADOR TOMAS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

This case originated from a money claim for overtime pay, underpayment, and holiday pay filed by respondent Dominador Tomas against petitioner Tan Beng, owner of New York Grocery, before Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor. After an ex parte hearing due to petitioner’s counsel’s motion for postponement, the Regional Office decided in favor of Tomas. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution. Petitioner then challenged the labor office’s jurisdiction and the constitutionality of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A (which created such regional offices) in the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI upheld the plan’s validity, a decision which became final. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed for being the wrong remedy. Undeterred, petitioner filed a second special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the CFI, this time alleging a denial of procedural due process in the ex parte proceedings.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the second petition for certiorari and prohibition on the grounds of res judicata and lack of merit in the procedural due process claim.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The Court’s legal logic proceeded on several grounds. First, the alleged denial of procedural due process was cured when petitioner actively filed a motion for reconsideration of the Regional Office’s decision. Jurisprudence consistently holds that a party who files a motion for reconsideration is deemed to have waived any irregularity in the prior proceedings and submits the case for resolution on the merits. Second, the defense of res judicata squarely applied. The validity of the Regional Office’s jurisdiction and the constitutionality of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A had already been conclusively litigated and settled in the first CFI case, which attained finality. A party cannot re-litigate the same cause of action under a different guise. Third, the Court applied the doctrine in Serrano de Agbayani v. PNB, noting that even assuming a potential defect in the law, the actions taken under a statute presumed valid prior to its nullification have legal consequences that must be recognized to ensure fairness and avoid chaos. Finally, the Court emphasized judicial efficiency and the reality that petitioner had multiple opportunities to contest the claim in court, and the factual findings of the labor office, including the existence of the debt, were sustained. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion warranted the extraordinary writs of certiorari or prohibition.