FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 197074, September 12, 2018
CITIBANK, N. A., Petitioner, v. PRISCILA B. ANDRES AND PEDRO S. CABUSAY, JR., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
JARDELEZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated January 12, 2011 and Resolution3 dated May 16, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 110524 which annulled and set aside the Decision4 dated March 31, 2009 and Resolution5 dated June 30, 2009 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division in NLRC NCR CASE 04-04447-03. The NLRC Second Division set aside the finality of the Resolution6 dated December 28, 2007 and Entry of Judgment7 dated April 18, 2008 issued by the NLRC First Division in NLRC NCR CA No. 039174-04 ( NLRC NCR CASE 04-04447-2003).
Respondents Priscila B. Andres (Andres) and Pedro S. Cabusay, Jr. (Cabusay) [collectively, respondents] were employed as Reconciliation Officer and SpeedCollect Officer, respectively, of the SpeedCollect Unit of petitioner Citibank, N.A. (p titioner). The SpeedCollect Unit is in charge of implementing, monitoring, and documenting the collection and crediting of payments made by petitioner's clients. On November 5, 2002, one of petitioner's clients complained that the check payments from its customers were not credited to their account. This prompted petitioner to launch an internal investigation where respondents voluntarily submitted themselves to a fact-finding interview. After the interview, petitioner referred the matter to its Internal Investigation Unit, the Citigroup Security Investigative Services (CSIS).8
The CSIS conducted an investigation and submitted a report detailing the alleged misdeeds committed by respondents. Eulalia M. Herrera (Herrera), Vice-President of petitioner's Human Resources Department, then met with respondents separately. She informed respondents that full-blown administrative proceedings will be conducted to determine the appropriate actions against them, if any, based on the CSIS report. Herrera also informed respondents that if they are found guilty of misconduct, their employment may be terminated, and the termination will be reported to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. In order to avoid such a result, Cabusay and Andres opted to file their respective resignation letters effective April 2 and 3, 2003, respectively.9
Respondents thereafter filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with claims for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees against petitioner before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA, however, dismissed respondents' complaint in its Decision10 dated December 29, 2003. Consequently, respondents filed an appeal with the NLRC. On October 20, 2005, the NLRC First Division issued its Decision11 (October Decision) reversing the LA Decision and ruling in respondents' favor. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the NLRC First Division in its Resolution12 dated December 28, 2007 (December Resolution).13 On February 15, 2008, the NLRC First Division mailed a copy of its December Resolution to petitioner through Herrera and its counsel of record, the Ponce Enrile Reyes & Manalastas Law Offices (PECABAR).14
Meanwhile, on January 25, 2008, the Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & De Los Angeles Law Offices (RMBSA) entered its appearance as collaborating counsel for petitioner. PECABAR subsequently withdrew its appearance as counsel for petitioner, with the latter's consent, on February 19, 2008.15
In due course, the NLRC First Division issued an Entry of Judgment on April 18, 2008.16 Respondents promptly moved for the execution of the NLRC ruling on May 12, 2008.17
On June 25, 2008, petitioner filed an urgent motion to set aside finality of judgment. The following day, it also filed an urgent motion to elevate expediente to the NLRC First Division.18 Due to the inhibition from the case of Commissioner Romeo L. Go of the NLRC First Division, the re-raffle of the case was indorsed.19 The Chairman of the NLRC later issued Administrative Order No. 11-16, series of 2008, endorsing the case to the NLRC Second Division.20
Petitioner alleged in its urgent motion to set aside finality of judgment that while a copy of the December Resolution was sent to PECABAR, its present counsel, RMBSA, did not similarly receive a copy. Moreover, the copy sent to petitioner (in the name of Eulalia Herrera) was returned unserved due to Herrera's resignation. Aside from the December Resolution, petitioner also denied having received copies of the Entry of Judgment and Notice of Hearing issued by the NLRC First Division. Thus, it claimed that it had been denied of its right to due process. Consequently, the October Decision did not attain finality and cannot be executed.21
Acting on petitioner's motion, the NLRC Second Division issued its Decision22 dated March 31, 2009, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the finality of the Resolution and the corresponding Entry of Judgment, dated April 18, 2008, are hereby ordered SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.23
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of respondent NLRC are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.30
Rather than rely on the interested party to register a motion to consolidate or the Justice to whom the case is assigned, it is best that it should be the Clerk of Court and the Division Clerks of Court of the CA who should be responsible for the review and consolidation of similarly intertwined cases. x x x38
Endnotes:
* Designated as Additional Member per Raffle dated September 5, 2018.
1 Under Rule 45, rollo (G.R. No. 197074), pp. 27-57.
2Id. at 11-20. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Manuel V. Lopez and Manuel M. Barrios of the Special Fifteenth Division.
3 Id. at 8-9.
4 Id. at 194-200. Penned by Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, with the concurrence of Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan of the NLRC Second Division.
5Id. at 221-222.
6 Id. at 179-180. Penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go, with the concurrence of Commissioners Gerardo C. Nograles and Perlita B. Velasco of the NLRC First Division.
7 Id at 189.
8 Id. at 512-513.
9Id. at 513.
10 Id. at 150-161. Penned by Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
11Id. at 163-177. Penned by Commissioner Romeo L. Go, with the concurrence of Commissioners Benedicto Emesto R. Bitonio, Jr. and Perlita B. Velasco of the NLRC First Division.
12Id. at 179-180.
13 Id. at 513-515.
14Id. at 14-15.
15Id. at 13.
16Id. at 12-13.
17Id. at 36.
18Id. at 37.
19 Records, p. 335.
20 Rollo (G.R. No. 197074), p. 196.
21Id at 201-207.
22 Supra note 4.
23 Rollo (G.R. No. 197074), p. 200.
24 Sec. 6. Service of Notices and Resolutions. – a) Notices or summons and copies of orders, shall be served on the parties to the case personally by the Bailiff or duly authorized public officer within three (3) days From receipt thereof or by registered mail; Provided, that in special circumstances, service of summons may be effected in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court; Provided further, that in cases of decisions and final awards, copies thereof shall be served on both parties and their counsel or representative by registered mail; Provided further that in cases where a party to a case or his counsel on record personally seeks service of the decision upon inquiry thereon, service to said party shall be deemed effected upon actual receipt thereof; Provided finally, that where parties are so numerous, service shall be made on counsel and upon such number of complainants, as may be practicable, which shall be considered substantial compliance with Article 224 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended.
For purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel or representative of record.x x x x
25 Rollo (G.R. No. 197074), pp. 197-199.
26Id. at 11.
27 The First CA Petition was dated September 7, 2009. Id. at 39 & 251.
28 The Second CA Petition was filed on September 9, 2009. Id. at 630.
29 Supra note 2.
30 Rollo (G.R. No. 197074), p. 19.
31 Id. at 18-19.
32 Id. at 511-524.
33Id. at 523.
34 Andes v. Citibank, N.A., June 27, 2012.
35 Rollo (G.R. No. 201344), pp. 71A-71B.
36 Id. at 85-86.
37 G.R. No. 197003, February 11, 2013, 690 SCRA 226.
38 Id. at 240.
39 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 31, Sec. 1. Consolidation. – When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. See also Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr., G.R. Nos. 175277 & 175285, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 511, 534.
40 Pinewood Marine (Phils.), Inc. v. EMCO Plywood Corporation, G.R. No. 179789, June 17, 2015, 759 SCRA 22, 40, citing PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Milan, G.R. No. 151215, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 258.
41 Id.
42 Tomas v. Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-Anti-Organized Crime Division (CIDG-AOCD), G.R. No. 208090, November 9, 2016, 808 SCRA 334, 345, citing FGU Insurance Corporation v. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, G.R. No. 161282, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 50, 56.
43 Sofio v. Valenzuela , G.R. No. 157810, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 55, 66. Citation omitted.
44Magat, Sr. v. Tantrade Corporation, G.R. No. 205483, August 23, 2017, citing Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106564, November 28, 1996, 265 SCRA 50.