STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

CASTILLO, E.G.

GR NO. 176908 MAR 25 2015

PETITIONER: PURISIMO M. CABABOAS

RESPONDENT: PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC.

PERALTA, J.:

I. FACTS
PCPPI suffered losses amounting to Php 29.2 million in 1999. IN order to avert further losses, the company
decided to implement a retrenchment program that led to the dismissal of 47 employees in its Tanauan, Leyte
Plant on July 1999.

On Sept 1999, 27 of the 47 dismissed employees, led by Anecito Molon, filed for complaints of illegal dismissal
which was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court.

On Jan 15 2000, the petitioners received letters informing them of their dismissal effective Feb 15 2000
pursuant to the retrenchment program being implemented by PCPPI. Petitioners then filed complaints for
illegal dismissal before the NLRC alleging that (1) PCPPI was not facing serious financial losses and (2) the
retrenchment was done to prevent their union from becoming a certified bargaining agent of PCPPI
employees.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners which led PCPPI appeal to NLRC’s Fourth Division, which
nullified the Labor Arbiter’s decision and declared valid the exercise of PCPPI’s retrenchment program and to
pay the retrenched employees an equivalent of 1 ½ month pay for every year of service plus commutation of
leave credits.

Petitioners and PCPPI both appealed the decision to the CA but was both denied. Petitioners then sought a
petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court assailing among others the decision of the CA’s 18 th
division ignoring the 20th Division’s decision based on the same factual and legal issues.

PCPPI now contends that petition for review on certiorari should be denied and the CA 18 th Division decision
affirmed following the doctrine of stare decisis based on the case of Molon.
II. ISSUE
 Whether or not the petition for review on certiorari should be denied and the CA 18 th Division decision
affirmed following the doctrine of stare decisis based on the case of Molon.
III. RULING -
 Yes. The Court sustained PCPPI’s contention.
The case of Molon and the present case are are identical, namely, the validity of PCPPI's retrenchment
program, and the legality of its employees' termination. There is also substantial identity of parties because
there is a community of interest between the parties in the first case and the parties in the second case, even
if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. The respondents in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v.
Molon are petitioners' former co-employees and co-union members of LEPCEU-ALU who were also
terminated pursuant to the PCPPI's retrenchment program. The only difference between the two cases is the
date of the employees' termination, i.e., Molon, et al. belong to the first batch of employees retrenched on
July 31, 1999, while petitioners belong to the second batch retrenched on February 15, 2000. That the validity
of the same PCPPI retrenchment program had already been passed upon and, thereafter, sustained in the
related case of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon.

Cababoas v. Pepsi-Cola