Escareal vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

Where both contending parties separately elevate an NLRC judgment via petitions for certiorari, the first appellate decision that attains finality constitutes res judicata on the other petition, as there is identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action—the assailed NLRC decision.

Petitioners, regular cabin attendants of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), were assigned to Flight PR501. A delay in the aircraft's arrival reduced the crew's rest period below the 12-hour minimum prescribed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Petitioners informed PAL and their union of their intent to back out to assert their CBA right. PAL relieved them, secured replacements, and the flight departed without interruption. PAL subsequently charged petitioners administratively for conspiracy, loitering, refusal to take assignment, and withholding cooperation, imposing a one-year suspension without pay.

• CBA Rest Period: Petitioners were PAL International Cabin Attendants receiving a ₱19,000.00 monthly salary. Section 38 of the 1995 PAL-FASAP CBA granted cabin attendants a minimum 12-hour rest period after a tour of duty.
• Flight Delay and Refusal: Assigned to Flight PR501, the crew was informed during a pre-flight briefing that departure was delayed from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., reducing their rest period. Upon arriving at NAIA and discovering further delay, petitioners informed their Line Administrator and union of their intent to back out to assert their CBA right. PAL's Duty Manager agreed it was better for them to assert this in Manila.
• Replacement and Flight: Petitioners returned their per diem, proceeded to the scheduling office, and were replaced. Flight PR501 departed at 6:00 p.m. with a full replacement crew and arrived without incident.
• Administrative Liability: PAL issued a Letter of Inquiry requiring petitioners to explain their failure to take the flight. Despite petitioners citing their CBA right, PAL found probable cause to charge them with Conspiracy or Concerted Action, Loitering or Abandonment of Post, Refusal to Take Assignment, and Withholding Cooperation. PAL found them guilty and imposed a one-year suspension without pay.

• Partial Res Judicata: Petitioners argued that res judicata applies only to the portion of CA-G.R. SP No. 54099 that declared the eleven-month suspension illegal, but is inapplicable to the validity of the remaining one-month suspension, which constituted a distinct issue, subject matter, and cause of action in CA-G.R. SP No. 54850.
• Equity Over Technicality: Petitioners maintained that the rigid application of res judicata should be disregarded to avoid the sacrifice of justice to technicality.

• Res Judicata: Respondent PAL countered that the issues in CA-G.R. SP No. 54850 were already conclusively determined in CA-G.R. SP No. 54099, which attained finality, thus barring the subsequent petition.

• Res Judicata: Whether the finality of the Court of Appeals decision in PAL's petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 54099) constitutes res judicata on petitioners' subsequent petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 54850) assailing the same NLRC decision.

• Res Judicata: The dismissal based on res judicata was affirmed. The four requisite elements of res judicata were present: (1) the former judgment was final; (2) it was rendered on the merits; (3) the court had jurisdiction; and (4) there was identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The subject matter and cause of action in both CA petitions was the assailed NLRC Decision. Identity of cause of action exists when the same evidence sustains both actions, and the reliefs sought by petitioners in their comment in the first case were similar to those in their petition in the second case. No due process violation justified an exception to the finality of judgments, as petitioners had been given their day in court and had actively participated in the first petition.

• Res Judicata — Requisites: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. Applied to bar the second petition because both petitions sought the reversal of the same NLRC decision, thereby sharing identity of subject matter and cause of action, and the reliefs sought were identical.

• "The sole and common objective of petitioners and respondents in filing their respective original actions for certiorari and in impleading therein the NLRC as public respondent was to secure the reversal of the NLRC’s Decision. By definition, therefore, the subject matter and the cause of action of the two original actions is the assailed Decision promulgated by the NLRC."
• "When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid judgment, that determination is conclusive in a subsequent action to the parties thereto."

• Stilanopolus v. City of Legaspi, G.R. No. 113913, 12 October 1999 — Followed. Causes of action are identical when there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions, or where the same evidence will sustain both actions.
• St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 356 Phil. 811 (1998) — Cited in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over NLRC decisions.

• Paragraph (b), Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court — Governs res judicata, providing that a judgment or final order is conclusive between the parties with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. Applied to bar the relitigation of the validity of the NLRC suspension.
• Section 38, 1995 PAL-FASAP Collective Bargaining Agreement — Grants a cabin attendant a rest period of at least twice the number of flight duty hours, with a minimum of twelve (12) hours. Served as the factual basis for petitioners' refusal to take the flight.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr.