G.R. No. L-15093; July 30, 1960
NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION (NARIC), petitioner, vs. CELSO HENSON, et al., and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

The National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) filed a petition in CIR Case No. 746-V for approval to permanently lay off employees who voluntarily agreed to sever their services as part of a retrenchment program due to a shortage of funds. The agreement included payment of a gratuity equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service, not exceeding twelve months. The list of employees included respondents Celso Henson and 40 others. On September 20, 1954, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) approved the agreement for the voluntary and permanent layoff effective February 12, 1954, but excluded from that order “certain employees who received their gratuities under protest” or “who did not receive gratuity,” stating their cases would be resolved separately.
In a decision dated October 9, 1954, the CIR addressed the excluded employees, particularly focusing on security guards. It found that the security guards had work to do (guarding company properties) and were relieved only because 19th BCT soldiers were detailed to take over upon presidential directive for reasons of economy and better protection. The court ruled that while the guards could not ordinarily be laid off, the circumstances compelled their relief. However, it ordered NARIC to give them the same gratuity rate as other laid-off employees and to reinstate them when the soldiers were recalled, pursuant to a prior collective bargaining agreement requiring no discrimination and job security. The decision also stated that other non-security guard employees who received gratuities under protest should be treated the same as those who voluntarily agreed to be laid off.
On February 11, 1958, respondents Henson et al. filed a petition for reinstatement (CIR Case No. 746-V[13]), alleging that despite the withdrawal of the 19th BCT soldiers from NARIC on September 27, 1955, NARIC failed to reinstate them and instead employed new personnel, violating the CIR’s 1954 order and the collective agreement. They sought reinstatement with back wages. NARIC moved to dismiss the petition on grounds of res judicata and that it was filed out of time. The CIR held the motion in abeyance. After a hearing, the CIR issued an order on January 13, 1959, granting the reinstatement of respondents. NARIC’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR en banc on February 3, 1959. NARIC then filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of respondents, specifically concerning: (1) the applicability of the principle of res judicata, and (2) whether the petition for reinstatement was filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Court of Industrial Relations.
1. On Res Judicata: The principle of res judicata does not apply. The present action for reinstatement is not barred by the CIR’s October 9, 1954 decision. That decision explicitly preserved the rights of the security guards (which include the respondents) to reinstatement when the soldiers were recalled. The decision created a continuing obligation for NARIC to reinstate them under the terms of the collective agreement. The cause of action for reinstatement arose only upon the recall of the soldiers on September 27, 1955. Therefore, the 1958 petition sought to enforce a subsisting right from the 1954 decision, not to relitigate a settled matter.
2. On Timeliness of the Petition: The petition for reinstatement was not filed out of time. The action is one to enforce a valid and subsisting agreement and court decision. Citing Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 (as amended) and the precedent in Katipunan Labor Union vs. Caltex, the Court held that in industrial disputes, the timeliness of an action to enforce an award or agreement is not strictly governed by ordinary statutes of limitation, especially when the main case (CIR Case No. 746-V) was still pending. The respondents’ right to reinstatement accrued on September 27, 1955, and their petition filed in 1958 was deemed timely filed under the circumstances.
The Supreme Court found no error or grave abuse of discretion in the CIR’s orders and affirmed them, with costs against NARIC.