Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SPECIAL FORMER SPECIAL NINTH (9TH) DIVISION

DAVE DUMADAG LIBUNAO, CA-G.R. SP NO. 146677

CHARLITO DACANAY
GACUSAN, RONNIE
GUERRERO ARGUZON,
RICARDO GUERRERO
ARGUZON, DENNIS JUANE
CHIAPCO, ANDREW AMBRAY
GAVINA, RAYMOND MOSE GO,
JR., VIRGILIO GALLEMA
MAÑO, JR., RODOLFO
ABINION CADAG, ROMMEL
CALIPAY ESCASINAS,
CRISANTO DACANAY
GACUSAN, RAMON LASIM
MOYA, CRISOLLO ANTIPORDA
BITONG, JEFFERSON SANTOS
CORRALES, RODOLFO
BRAVO IGOT, JESUS
NALAGON FERRER JR., and
ELVIN DADULO PIZON,
Petitioners,

- versus -

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC./
BILL SCHULTZ, INTERSERVE
MANAGEMENT & MANPOWER
RESOURCES. INC./ JEROME
LL. PADILLA, ROMAC
SERVICES & TRADING CO.,
INC./ RENATO G. ROMERO and
THE REDSYSTEMS CO. INC./
EDILBERTO L. SO,
Respondents.

x––––––––––––––– x
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 146677 and 146719 Page 2 of 6
RESOLUTION

COCA-COLA FEMSA CA-G.R. SP NO. 146719

PHILIPPINES INC. (formerly
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
Members:
PHILIPPINES, INC.)
Petitioner, *
BRUSELAS, A.D., JR., Acting
Chairperson
CRUZ, R.A., and
- versus - **
QUIJANO-PADILLA, M.L.C., JJ.

THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION Promulgated:
(NLRC), SECOND DIVISION, September 6, 2019
DAVE DUMADAG LIBUNAO,
CHARLITO DACANAY
GACUSAN, RONNIE
GUERRERO ARGUZON,
RICARDO GUERRERO
ARGUZON, DENNIS JUANE
CHIAPCO, ANDREW AMBRAY
GAVINA, RAYMOND MOSE GO,
JR., VIRGILIO GALLEMA
MAÑO, JR., RODOLFO
ABINION CADAG, ROMMEL
CALIPAY ESCASINAS,
CRISANTO DACANAY
GACUSAN, RAMON LASIM
MOYA, CRISOLLO ANTIPORDA
BITONG, JEFFERSON SANTOS
CORRALES, RODOLFO BRAVO
IGOT, JESUS NALAGON
FERRER JR., and ELVIN
DADULO PIZON, INTERSERVE
MANAGEMENT & MANPOWER
RESOURCES, INC., ROMAC
SERVICES & TRADING CO.,
INC., and THE REDSYSTEMS
CO. INC.
Respondents.

x-------------------------------------------------x
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 146677 and 146719 Page 3 of 6
RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION
Cruz, R.A., J.:

This treats of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by

Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. (Coca-Cola) 1 on December 27,
2018 and Motion for Reconsideration filed by Libunao et al. 2 on
December 21, 2018 seeking a modification and reversal of Our
Decision dated November 29, 2018, respectively. The dispositive
portion of which reads:

xxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for
Certiorari filed by complainants Dave Dumadag Libunao, Charlito
Dacanay Gacusan, Ronnie Guerrero Arguzon, Ricardo Guerrero
Arguzon, Dennis Juane Chiapco, Andrew Ambray Gavina,
Raymond Mose Go, Jr., Virgilio Gallema Maño, Jr., Rodolfo Abinion
Cadag, Rommel Calipay Escasinas, Crisanto Dacanay Gacusan,
Ramon Lasim Moya, Crisollo Antiporda Bitong, Jefferson Santos
Corrales, Rodolfo Bravo Igot, Jesus Nalagon Ferrer Jr., and Elvin
Dadulo Pizon, in CA-G.R. SP No. 146677 is hereby DISMISSED
while the Petition for Certiorari filed by Coca-Cola Femsa
Philippines Inc.3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 146719 is PARTLY GRANTED.
Accordingly, the assailed Resolution dated December 29, 2015 and
Resolutions dated February 18, 2016 and May 20, 2016 rendered
by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second
Division, in LAC No. 11-003208-15 NCR Case No. 08-10227-14
NCR Case No. 09-10878-14 are hereby AFFIRMED subject to the
following MODIFICATIONS:

1. The complaints filed by Dave Dumadag Libunao, Charlito

Dacanay Gacusan, Ronnie Guerrero Arguzon, Ricardo Guerrero
Arguzon, Dennis Juane Chiapco, Andrew Ambray Gavina,
Raymond Mose Go, Jr., Virgilio Gallema Maño, Jr., Crisanto
Dacanay Gacusan, and Ramon Lasim Moya are dismissed on the
ground of prescription; and

2. The total monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate

of six percent (6%) per annum from finality until full satisfaction.

The case is REMANDED to the labor arbiter for the

computation of the monetary awards set forth above.

xxx
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 146677 and 146719 Page 4 of 6
RESOLUTION

After a judicious review of Coca-Cola's Motion for Partial

Reconsideration, however, reveals that no new matters were raised
that would warrant a modification of Our Decision. The arguments
raised in the motion were already judiciously passed upon in the said
Decision. A Motion for Reconsideration which does not make out any
new matter sufficiently persuasive to induce modification of judgment
will be denied.4 The effect and disposition of a Motion for
Reconsideration was succinctly discussed in the case of Ortigas and
Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Velasco, et al., 5 viz.:
xxx
The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule
52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the
obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds
relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in
its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and
submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual
invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set
forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments
advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with
respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above
stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first
opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily
with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground
for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion
contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already
submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its
judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or
the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to
warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final
order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to
require consideration, etc.
xxx

On the other hand, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by

Libunao et al. asserts that the issue of prescription has never been
raised as an issue in the initial stages of this case and, thus, cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal, or through a Petition for Certiorari in
the Court.

We are not persuaded.

It must be pointed out that even before the resolution of this case
before the labor arbiter, Coca-Cola was already contending that no
employer-employee relationship existed between them. 6 In the same
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 146677 and 146719 Page 5 of 6
RESOLUTION

vein, if there's no employer-employee relationship between the parties,

the alleged date of dismissal bears no significance in this case.
Moreover, the records reveal that Coca-Cola, in its Motion for
Reconsideration before the NLRC which assailed the Resolution dated
December 29, 2015,7 asserted the following: 1) “Not a single
complainant was able to present evidence that he was previously
employed with all of the respondent-appellees”; 8 and 2) “Not a single
complainant was able to present evidence that he rendered service up
to the date of his alleged dismissal”.9
In cases of this kind, it is incumbent upon the employees to first
establish the fact of their dismissal before the burden is shifted to the
employer to prove that the dismissal was legal. 10 The burden of
proving the allegations rests upon the party alleging and the proof
must be clear, positive, and convincing. 11 In this case, it is incumbent
upon Libunao et al. to prove that they were indeed dismissed on the
date stated in their complaint. However, Libunao et al. did not proffer
any evidence, including service contracts for the period constituting
their supposed illegal termination. The only evidence they submitted
were the payslips involving their last compensation from their
respective employers. The Court cannot simply speculate that Libunao
et al. were all terminated on the date stated in the complaint without
proof that they rendered services on even dates. Therefore, it cannot
be gainsaid that the issue of prescription was only raised by Coca-
Cola for the first time before the Court as it was necessarily included to
the question of Libunao et al.'s actual date of dismissal vis-a-vis the
date of filing of the complaint.

The other arguments raised in their motion are mere rehash of

matters previously considered and found to be without merit in the
assailed Decision. Discussing anew the ratio decidendi of our decision
would be to belabor the issues ad infinitum.

Accordingly, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by

Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. and the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Libunao et al. are DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 146677 and 146719 Page 6 of 6
RESOLUTION

WE CONCUR:

APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.

Associate Justice

MA. LUISA C. QUIJANO-PADILLA

Associate Justice

*
New Member of the Special Former Special Ninth Division per Raffle dated June 21, 2019, vice
J. Henri Jean Paul B. Inting per Office Order No. 591-18-RFB dated November 28, 2018 who
was appointed as Supreme Court Associate Justice, vice J. Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig per
Office Order No. 577-18-RFB in view of her leave of absence, vice J. Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez
per raffle dated November 16, 2018 in view of her leave of absence (Wellness Program), vice J.
Ramon M. Bato who voluntarily inhibits himself from participating in this case.
**
New Member of the Special Ninth Division per raffle dated November 27, 2018 vice J. Pablito
A. Perez who voluntarily inhibits himself from participating in this case.
1
Petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 146719.
2
Petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 146677, namely Dave Dumadag Libunao, Charlito Dacanay
Gacusan, Ronnie Guerrero Arguzon, Ricardo Guerrero Arguzon, Dennis Juane Chiapco, Andrew
Ambray Gavina, Raymond Mose Go, Jr., Virgilio Gallema Maño, Jr., Rodolfo Abinion Cadag,
Rommel Calipay Escasinas, Crisanto Dacanay Gacusan, Ramon Lasim Moya, Crisollo
Antiporda Bitong, Jefferson Santos Corrales, Rodolfo Bravo Igot, Jesus Nalagon Ferrer Jr., and
Elvin Dadulo Pizon.
3
Formerly Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.
4
Flores v. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, August 25, 2010.
5
G.R. Nos. 109645-112564, March 4, 1996, likewise cited in the consolidated case of Social
Justice Officers v. Lim, G.R. Nos. 187836 and 187916, March 10, 2015.
6
Id., CA-G.R. No. 146677, Annex “H”, pp. 439-468.
7
Records, CA-G.R. No. 146719, Annex “U”, pp. 1540-1557.
8
Id., Id., Id., p. 1555.
9
Id.
10
Exodus International Construction Corporation v. Biscocho, G.R. No. 166109, February 23,
2011.
11
Dee Jay's Inn and Cafe v. Rañeses, G.R. No. 191823, October 5, 2016.