G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982
LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, SMITH BELL & COMPANY, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners were employees of Philippine Business Forms, Inc. (PBFI) and members of a union. They went on strike on March 15, 1965. On March 31, 1965, they offered to return to work, but management refused. In 1965, their union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge (CIR Charge No. 446-ULP) against PBFI, which the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) dismissed on February 5, 1969, for failure to establish a prima facie case. PBFI’s counter-ULP charge against the petitioners (CIR Case No. 5079-ULP) was also dismissed on September 18, 1969.
On March 30, 1971, the petitioners reiterated their offer to return to work, which was again refused. They subsequently filed a complaint for reinstatement with back wages with the CIR (Charge No. 4327). Due to the creation of the (Ad Hoc) National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) under Presidential Decree No. 21, they filed a similar complaint there (NLRC Ad Hoc Case No. 0385). The Ad Hoc NLRC dismissed this complaint on January 18, 1973, on the ground of res judicata. The petitioners then pursued their original CIR case, which was re-docketed as NLRC Case No. 6065-ULP. This too was dismissed by the NLRC and later affirmed by the Secretary of Labor, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the petitioners’ complaint for reinstatement with back wages on the ground of res judicata is correct.

RULING

Yes, the doctrine of res judicata applies. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The core cause of action in the present complaint (NLRC Case No. 6065-ULP) is the alleged illegal dismissal stemming from the refusal to reinstate the petitioners after their offers to return to work on March 31, 1965, and March 30, 1971. This is identical to the cause of action previously raised and adjudicated in the earlier NLRC Ad Hoc Case No. 0385, which was dismissed on its merits. The Court emphasized that a party who deliberately selects a forum and presents his case is bound by the adverse judgment in a subsequent suit involving all identical issues.
The prior dismissal by the CIR of the union’s ULP charge (Charge No. 446-ULP) for failure to establish a prima facie case implicitly resolved the legality of the strike and the consequent claim for reinstatement. The petitioners cannot relitigate the same fundamental issue—their right to reinstatement based on the same set of operative facts—under a different procedural label. Public policy demands an end to litigation; once a judgment becomes final, the contested issues must be laid to rest to ensure an effective and efficient administration of justice.