REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

TWELFTH (12TH) DIVISION

MARNIE E. VARONA,
REX I. ABALLE,
WILLIAM T. CEBIDO,
CARINA P. BON,
JEFFERSON L. SAN ANTONIO,
JUDY ANN A. SAN ANTONIO,
RODA M. NARIZ,
JASMIN P. BELEN,
LUCHELL K. FELIX,
DANIEL R. GRAJO,
EDWIN R. CABATIC,
MARK IAN M. DEL PILAR,
ANGELO G. BRONDO,
HARLEY L. FABIAN,
JENALYN M. TACTAQUIN,
and
JOVEN B. NIEDO
Petitioners,

- versus – C.A – G.R SP NO. 181632

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION FIFTH (5TH) DIVISION
NUTRI ASIA INC./JOSELITO CAMPOS
B-MIRK ENTERPRISES CORP./
BOY SAN PEDRO AND RAMON A. CASTRO

Respondents,

x-----------------------------------------x

COMMENT and OPPOSITION

Private Respondent, B-MIRK Enterprises Corp, Inc., (B-Mirk for

brevity), unto this Honorable Court, respectfully submits its Comment
and Opposition in the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioners dated
November 24, 2023, through the undersigned most respectfully states
that:

1
 1. On January 10, 2024, we received a copy of the December
18, 2023, Resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals
Twelfth Division (12th) directing herein respondents to file a
Comment or Opposition to the Petition filed by the
complainants in the above stated case within Ten (10)
calendar days which reads:

"Without necessarily giving due course to the instant

Petition for Certiorari, private respondents are
DIRECTED to FILE their Comment on the Petition, not
a Motion to Dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice.
Petitioners may file a Reply thereto within five (5)
days from receipt thereof.

Pursuant to the Decision of the Supreme Court in A.M.

No. CA-13-51-J dated July 2, 2013, the parties’
counsel are REQUIRED to PROMPTLY NOTIFY this
Court, within ten (10) days from notice of the
pendency of any other cases or proceedings involving
the same parties and issues pending in this or other
courts.”1

2. Meanwhile, respondents acting on the direction of the

Honorable Court respectfully submits this Comment and
Opposition to the Petition submitted and filed by the
petitioners dated November 24, 2023, which was received by
the humble respondents on December 11, 2023.

3. The filing of the instant Petition stems from the complainant’s

contention on the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission Fifth (5th) division through its presiding
commissioner Grace M. Venus in its Resolution on the above
stated case dated September 29, 2023 denying the petitioners’
Motion for Reconsideration dated August 24, 2023 and
affirming its decision dated August 11, 2023 for lack of merit
and affirming the decision dated February 23, 2023 of the
Labor Arbiter Danna M. Castillon.

4. However, the humble respondents assert its comments and

opposition to the filing of the complainant’s petition with
grounds as follows:

1
CA DECSISION, G.R. SP NO. 181632

2
 GROUNDS OF THE PETITION

I. THE COMMISSION COMMITED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION
IN RULING THAT RES JUDICATA EXIST OR FORUM
SHOPPING.

II. THE COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION
IN FAILING TO RULE ON THE ISSUE OF EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
PETITIONERS AND THE PRINCIPAL NUTRIASIA AND, ON
THE ISSUE ON THE VALIDITY OF DISMISSAL AND
PETITIONERS’ ENTITLEMENT TO THEIR PRAYED
RELIEFS FOR REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL
BACKWAGES PLUS DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.

III. THE COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION
IN RULING THAT THE COMPLAINT OF THE FOLLOWING
HAD PRESCRIBED: WILLIAM CEBIDO, JEFFERSON SAN
ANTONIO, MINERVA BIER, RAFAELA CABRERA, EWIN
CABATIC, AND RODA NARIZ.

IV. THE COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION
IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS: MARIA CARMEL ABAD,
MONENA BELANO, ANGELO BRONDO, JENNIFER DACIR,
JESSIE DE TORRES, DULCE SYMON, FABIAN HARLEY,
JOSHUA FARAODA, DANIEL GRAHO, LEO RANADA,
JUDY ANN SAN ANTONIO, AND ANALYN TACTAQUIN
SETTLED WITH BMIRK AND EXECUTED WAIVERS AND
QUITCLAIMS.

DISCUSSIONS

I.

5. The contention of herein petitioners that the public

respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
committed grave abuse of discretion and lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it ruled that there is Res Judicata or
Forum shopping should not be taken into consideration on
the ground that the same were a rehash of the petitioners
3
 past arguments in which they failed to prove or contradict
the humble respondent’s argument. Likewise, the burden of
proof is on the petitioners to establish or substantiate such
allegations of grave abuse of discretion and in the absence of
such. So, this petition should be laid to rest and eventually
fail and should no longer see the light of the day.

6. Admittingly, the Honorable Commission ruled correctly that

litis pendentia was present in this case and thus should not
be disturbed. First, there is identity of parties. The parties in
the Lagaya v. DOLE case pending before the Court of
Appeals and the parties in this case are essentially the
same. The herein petitioners are among those involved in the
Lagaya case, as part of the 378 B-Mirk Enterprises
employees, while respondents Nutri-Asia, Inc. and B-Mirk
Enterprises in this case also respondents in this case.
Second, the proceedings in the Lagaya case and in this case
involve the same rights asserted by the parties and the same
reliefs prayed for by them. Third, there is an identity of
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for in both cases. As
correctly pointed out by the Commission, the rehashed
contentions made by the petitioners still point to the
conclusion that there is forum shopping in this case.

II.

7. Also, the repeated contention of herein petitioners alleging

that the private respondents NutriAsia Inc. and B-Mirk
Enterprises Corporation are engaged in Labor-Only
Contracting was definitely misunderstood and should not
deserve any merit for being a mere rehash or irrelevant
reiteration of the arguments already explained in their prior
pleadings which can be considered as a waste of time of this
Honorable Court.

8. Aptly stated, the contention of the petitioners that the

Commission gravely abused its discretion when it opted to
rule on the issue on Employer-Employee relationship
between the petitioners and the principal or co-respondent
NutriAsia and on the issue on the validity of dismissal and
petitioners’ entitlement to their prayed reliefs for
reinstatement with full backwages plus damages and
attorneys’ fees were made without any legal basis that is
undeserving or merit of this Honorable Court. As a matter of
fact, and of law, there was simply no legal ground for which
the petition can stand on because herein respondents
already explained the same and that the petitioners’
4
 arguments were rehashed again when their case is already a
lost cause that cannot be salvaged.

9. Respondent most respectfully but firmly disagree with the

unsupported allegations of the Petitioners in the filing of the
instant Petition. In the First place, the averment that the
Honorable Labor Relations Commissioner erred and have
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess in the exercise of its jurisdiction is more of a
presumption rather than a valid conclusion. Relatively, the
same is obviously an attempt to salvage a lost and lack of
causes of action on the part of the petitioners by beclouding
the issue on the true merits of the case.

10. Besides, the allegation that the Honorable Commission has

committed a wanton and capricious exercise of judgment in
dismissing the claims of herein petitioners in rendering its
decision is ridiculous and illogical, for the nature of the
claims is clearly patent on the very face of the decision
when the Honorable Commission explained and stated the
reasons or the grounds thereof. Hence, the factual findings
in relation to the decision of the Honorable Commission is
founded in an obvious belief that petitioners wanted to
justify their failure in establishing their claim and
stubbornly argue on their baseless claim without presenting
reasonable grounds or evidences to assert their claims.

III.

11. Moreover, the argument of herein petitioners that the

complaints of William Cebido, Jefferson San Antonio, Minerva
Bier, Rafaela Cabrera, Ewin Cabatic, and Roda Nariz did not
prescribe should not be given advertence for being baseless,
specious, and illogical since the same were a mere rehash of
their unsubstantiated arguments. Thus, the rehashed
arguments should not be given any thought or attention.

12. In addition, the Honorable Labor Arbiter was correct in

ruling that the petitioners William Cebido, Jefferson San
Antonio, Minerva Bier, Rafaela Cabrera, Ewin Cabatic, and
Roda Nariz filed their complaint way beyond the four (4) year
prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.

IV.
5
13. Certainly, in the Petition for Certiorari filed by herein
petitioners dated November 24, 2023, on the claims that
Maria Carmel Abad, Monena Belano, Angelo Brondo,
Jennifer Dacir, Jessie De Torres, Dulce Symon, Fabian
Harley, Joshua Faroada, Daniel Graho, Leo Ranada, Judy
Ann San Antonio, and Analyn Tactaquin whom the
aforementioned did not settle with B-Mirk and did not
execute Waivers and Quitclaims should not be given
attention on the ground that their so-called baseless and
unsubstantiated arguments as already stated in their
position paper and previous pleadings were a rehash and
repetition which does not warrant time and attention of this
Honorable Court. Additionally, the Honorable Commission
cannot just rely on the records of the case such as the filing
of position papers and pertinent pleadings in order to decide
or resolve a particular decision or resolution. Put differently,
the Honorable Commission being an institution created by
law is dutybound to the procedural wisdom and guidance
enunciated in the 2011 National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) Rules of Procedure. Still, any form of
Monetary claims must be expressly invoked in a form
prescribed as a requisite for the perfection of a valid appeal
which thereby subjecting the Honorable Commission’s
discretion of review and proper disposition. Suffice to say, as
to the contention of herein petitioners as being contrary to
the records pertaining to the case is valid and sufficient
enough to for the denial of the petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration dated September 29, 2023.

14. In the same manner, the filing of the instant petition which
is drawn from the alleged existence of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the
petitioner’s self-serving allegations that the Honorable
Commission totally departed from facts as well as admitted
evidence and thereafter decided not in favor of the
petitioners in granting their claims is absurd and illogical.
This means that, the fact that in the decision of the
Honorable Commission dated August 11, 2023, which
affirmed the decision of the Honorable Labor Arbiter Danna
M. Castillon dated February 23, 2023, within which the
decision was gleaned with conclusions based on law and
applicable jurisprudence. Therefore, given these premises,
the Presiding Commissioner vehemently denied herein
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and ruled in the
humble respondent’s favor.

6
15. In addition, therewith, the Labor Arbiter was correctly
affirmed by the Honorable Commission that in this case the
waiver and quitclaim executed by Maria Carmel Abad,
Monena Belano, Angelo Brondo, Jennifer Dacir, Jessie De
Torres, Dulce Symon, Fabian Harley, Joshua Faroada,
Daniel Graho, Leo Ranada, Judy Ann San Antonio, and
Analyn Tactaquin are valid because not all waivers and
quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. They were
correct and should not be disturbed that if the agreement
was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable
settlement, then it is binding on the parties and may not
later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. The
agreement into settlement in the form of a waiver and quit
claim should be already “touch move”. The humble
respondent hereby agrees that a lawful and valid Waiver and
Quitclaim should not be touched again and should no longer
be questioned. As correctly ruled by the Labor Arbiter as
affirmed by the Commission, the amounts received by the
complainants in the Quitclaims are reasonable amounts.

16. Accordingly, the humble respondents would like to state that

the Honorable Commission was correct and did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in denying the issue on Unfair
Labor Practice since the one who alleges Unfair Labor
Practice has the burden of proving it with substantial
evidence.

V. ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS

17. Similarly, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of

EDUARDO TOLENTINO RODRIGUEZ and IMELDA GENER
RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MANILA – BRANCH 17, GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, represented by the Philippine
Department of Justice, and DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents, (G.R. No.
157977 February 27, 2006) provided for a precise
definition of Grave abuse of discretion to wit:

“Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as a

"capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law.”

7
18. Verily, petitioners were just trying to make it appear to be in
compliance with all the requirements under the Rules of
Court, when in truth and in fact, they have disregarded the
rules by stating questions of fact instead of questions based
on pertinent provisions law and applicable jurisprudence in
their Petition for certiorari when they mentioned that B-
MIRK is a labor-only contractor and co-respondent NutriAsia
Inc. is their legitimate employer that they did not commit
forum shopping, that the complaint of the other petitioners
have prescribed and that the others already executed
waivers, and quitclaims. The issues mentioned herein are
repeatedly questions of fact and not of law. The Rules of
Court is very clear that only questions of law can be raised
in a special civil action of Certiorari and failure to do so
merits the dismissal of the petition.

19. Consequently, herein petitioners might have misconstrued

the importance of asserting any claim as a matter of right
through the filing of their Petition for Certiorari being a
procedural requirement when in fact, they have failed to
show meritorious and justifiable reason based on questions
of law for them to be entitled to the Certiorari they are
asking.

20. Also, the grounds stated in the Certiorari filed by the

petitioners are defective and should not deserve any merit of
this Honorable Court for the reason that, the ruling of the
Honorable Commission was not tainted with any abuse of
discretion, thus, within the Commission’s lawful discretion
which falls within the ambit of its powers and duties. Hence,
the same cannot be granted and should not see the light of
this Honorable Court.

21. In the ventilation of all the arguments hereby presented and

in appreciating the facts and evidence related to the present
petition. And so, respondent most respectfully beg for the
indulgence of this Honorable Court to disregard this self-
serving and one-sided approach resorted to the filing of this
Petition for Certiorari.

22. Nevertheless, the contention of herein petitioners has been a

reiteration of the arguments stated in their position papers
in which they have been discussing issues already resolved
by the Honorable Commission in our favor. This being the
case, the humble respondents have been wondering why
petitioners kept on meddling with issues that were already
8
 been resolved in the decision of the Honorable Commission
dated September 29, 2023, affirming its decision dated
August 11, 2023, that reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

Motions for Reconsideration, To Inhibit and to
Suspend Proceedings filed by complainants is
DENIED. The Decision of this Commission dated
August 11, 2023 STANDS.

SO ORDERED.”

23. Corollary, the Honorable Commissioner in the

aforementioned decision clearly establishes a valid argument
why it ruled against the petitioners in its decision dated
August 11, 2023, within which it affirmed dated September
29, 2023. Much to the dismay of the humble respondents, it
seems to hardly understand the reason as well as the
grounds in filing the instant petition when in fact there are
no legal grounds to do so. Admittedly, the petition for
certiorari must definitely fail for being baseless, reckless,
and unproven.

24. Relatedly, In People of the Philippines v. The Honorable

Court of Appeals and Ramon Galicia y Manresa (G.R.
No. 159261- February 21, 2007) the Court cited that:

“No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed

to the court simply because of its alleged
misappreciation of facts and evidence.”

25. Along with, the Supreme Court held in First Corporation v.

Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 171989, July 04, 2007) that:

“It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a

review of facts and evidence is not the province
of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which
is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal. In
certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go
as far as to examine and assess the evidence of
the parties and to weigh the probative value
thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the
correctness of the evaluation of evidence. Any
error committed in the evaluation of evidence is
merely an error of judgment that cannot be
remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is

9
 one which the court may commit in the exercise
of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one
where the act complained of was issued by the
court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to
lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error
is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of
certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure
errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the
evidence of the parties, or its conclusions
anchored on the said findings and its
conclusions of law. It is not for this Court to re-
examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses or substitute the
findings of fact of the court a quo.”

26. What is more in the case of CHARLO P. IDUL, PETITIONER,

VS. ALSTER INT'L SHIPPING SERVICES, INC. (G.R No.
209907. June 23, 2021) the Supreme Court reiterated that
the filing of a Petition for Certiorari cannot be substituted for
an Ordinary Appeal which pertinently reads:

“Seemingly, a Petition for Certiorari under Rule

65 was filed to make up for the loss of
petitioner's right to an ordinary appeal. However,
it is elementary that the special civil action
of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute
for an appeal, where the latter remedy is
available. While the Court has, in several cases,
previously granted a petition
for certiorari despite the availability of an
appeal, it only applies (a) when public welfare
and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b)
when the broader interest of justice so requires;
(c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d)
when the questioned order amounts to an
oppressive exercise of judicial
authority. Conversely, the case at bar does not
fall under any of the exceptions.”

27. In our view, the conclusions arrived at by the Honorable

Commission cannot by any measure be characterized as
capricious, whimsical nor arbitrary, to constitute grave abuse
of discretion. The burden of proof is on the petitioners to
prove the same. In DORELCO V. NLRC (G.R. No. 128389,
November 25, 1999) it is very clear that:

10
 “In a special action for certiorari, the burden is on
petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public
respondent. "By grave abuse of discretion is
meant capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must
be grave abuse of discretion as when the power
is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility, and
must be so patent and so gross as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at
all in contemplation of law."

28. In the end, the humble respondent notes that while

petitioners had been alleging grave abuse of discretion as
the core of the filing of its Petition for Certiorari. All in all,
the issues raised therein in their self-serving Petition for
Certiorari concerns no errors of judgment nor errors of
jurisdiction that can be tantamount to petitioners
misconstrued application of law and applicable
jurisprudence in a form of an appeal within which can be in
contrast with the express injunction of the Constitution, the
2011 National Labor Relations Rules of Procedure and
applicability of laws and prevailing jurisprudence.

It is our humble submission that all the foregoing

grounds are untenable, baseless, and groundless.

RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed to this Honorable Court that the instant
COMMENT/OPPOSITION be ADMITTED. It is further prayed
that the Petition for Certiorari filed by the Petitioners be DENIED
for utter lack of merit.

Other reliefs and remedies which may be just and equitable

under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully Submitted.

Antipolo City for City of Manila January 22, 2024.

11
 RAMON A. CASTRO
Representative of Respondents
No. 9 Pizarro St. Vista Verde Executive Village
Antipolo City

COPY FURNISHED

ATTY. RUPERTO N. LISTANA

Counsel for the Petitioners
Banzuela & Associates
B3 L9 Delima Subd., Brgy. Ibaba
Sta. Rosa, Laguna

TOLOSA JAVIER LIM & CHUA LAW FIRM

Counsel for Nutri Asia Inc.
Unit 1002-A East Tower
Philippines Stock Exchange Centre
Exchange Road, Ortigas Center
Pasig City

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

FIFTH (5th) DIVISION
Ben-Lor Building, 1184 Quezon Avenue,
Diliman 1101, Quezon City

EXPLANATION

The undersigned hereby informs this Honorable Court that

a copy of this Comment and Opposition was served
personally to the Court of Appeals Twelfth (12 th) Division in
Manila, Atty. Ruperto N. Listana, counsel for the
petitioners, TOLOSA JAVIER LIM & CHUA LAW FIRM,

12
counsel for NutriAsia Philippines Inc. and the NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FIFTH (5th) DIVISION via
registered mail/private courier due to distance involved to
effect personal service.

RAMON A. CASTRO
Representative of Respondents
No. 9 Pizarro St. Vista Verde Executive Village
Antipolo City

13