Club Filipino, Inc. v. Bautista, et. al., GR No.

168406; June 4, 2015

FACTS: Before expiration of the CBA, the Club Filipino Employees Association asked the company for
renegotiation within the 60 day period. The company first said it cannot because of lack of quorum of
its BOD and later because of the sickness of its chairperson in the negotiation. After a year they met
but later the union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and
failure to bargain. Afterwards, the company formally responded to the demands of the union when it
submitted the first part of its economic counter-proposal then the second part. Meanwhile, the union
conducted a strike vote under the supervision of the Department of Labor and Employment. 
In response to the company’s counter-proposal, the union sent the company its improved
proposal, but the company refused to improve on its offer. This prompted the union to stage a strike
on the ground of a CBA bargaining deadlock.  The company filed before the NLRC a petition to declare
the second strike as illegal. According to Club Filipino, Inc., CLUFEA failed to file a Notice of Strike and
to conduct a strike vote, in violation of the legal requirements for staging a strike. The company further
prayed that all union officers who participated in the illegal strike be considered separated from the
service. The labor arbiter declared the strike “procedurally infirm and therefore illegal.” NLRC affirmed.
However, CA set aside the rulings of the NLRC and the labor arbiter. CA held that the Labor Arbiter
gravely abused his discretion in declaring CLUFEA's strike illegal.  The CA ruled that the requirements
under Rule XXII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code "[do] not appear to be
absolute."  The rule only requires that the proposals and counterproposals be attached to the Notice of
Strike "as far as practicable." Since CLUFEA had already filed a Notice of Strike when Club Filipino, Inc.
submitted its counterproposals, it was not practicable for CLUFEA to attach Club Filipino, Inc.'s
counterproposals to the Notice of Strike.
SC affirmed CA regarding the validity of the strike and to pay Sualog, Calida, Arinto, and de
Guzman separation pay computed at one (1) month salary per year of service from the time of their
hiring up to the finality of the Decision. CLUFEA filed an MR and the SCt denied it with finality in the
Resolution dated September 9, 2009.  CLUFEA filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and the
subsequent Motions to Resolve; Club Filipino maintains that the SC erred in affirming the Court of
Appeals' award of backwages and separation pay in the illegal strike case on top of the separation pay
respondents received by virtue of Club Filipino, Inc.'s retrenchment program. Club Filipino argues that
the NLRC's Resolution of the issue constituted res judicata as to bar the CA from declaring that
respondents were illegally dismissed and from awarding respondents separation pay in the illegal
strike case.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether Club Filipino, Inc.'s filing of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration prevented our
Resolution dated July 13, 2009 from becoming final and executory; and
(2) Whether the NLRC's Decision on the illegal dismissal case was res judicata on the illegal strike case.

HELD: (1.) No. As a general rule, the filing of second Motions for Reconsideration of a judgment or final
resolution is prohibited. Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 2. Second motion for reconsideration. No second motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
This prohibition is reiterated in Rule 15, Section 3 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court.
(2.) No. The first three (3) elements of res judicata are present in this case. The fourth element of res
judicata, however, is absent.  Although the cases have substantially identical parties and subject matter
of the dismissal of respondents, the cause of action for declaration of illegal strike and the cause of
action for illegal dismissal are different.
In an action for declaration of illegal strike, the cause of action is premised on a union or a labor
organization's conduct of a strike without compliance with the statutory requirements. On the other
hand, in an action for illegal dismissal, the cause of action is premised on an employer's alleged
dismissal of an employee without a just or authorized cause as provided under the Labor Code.