Scribd
Upload
124 views2 pages

Res Judicata in Shell Labor Dispute

The document discusses the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. It explains that conclusiveness of judgment means that a fact or question that was previously decided by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be relitigated by the same parties. For a previous judgment to be conclusive on a particular issue in a subsequent case, the issues in both cases must be identical. The document then states that the decision in a 2005 labor dispute over which the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction has already become final, and the union does not deny this.

Uploaded by

Claire Silvestre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
124 views2 pages

Res Judicata in Shell Labor Dispute

The document discusses the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. It explains that conclusiveness of judgment means that a fact or question that was previously decided by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be relitigated by the same parties. For a previous judgment to be conclusive on a particular issue in a subsequent case, the issues in both cases must be identical. The document then states that the decision in a 2005 labor dispute over which the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction has already become final, and the union does not deny this.

Uploaded by

Claire Silvestre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Conclusiveness of judgment

TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs. PILIPINAS SHELL


PETROLEUM CORPORATION, G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014

“x x x.

First, the petition is barred by res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of


judgment.

The concept of conclusiveness of judgment is explained in Nabus v. Court of


Appeals30as follows:

The doctrine states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit, and
was there judicially passed on and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein, as far as concerns the
parties to that action and persons in privity with them, and cannot be again
litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same
court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or a
different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed or unvacated by
proper authority. The only identities thus required for the operation of the
judgment as an estoppel x x x are identity of parties and identity of issues.

It has been held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as
to a particular matter in another action between the same parties or their privies,
it is essential that the issues be identical. If a particular point or question is in
issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of
that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties
[or their privies] will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or
question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit[.] x x x. (Citations omitted.)

The Decision dated June 8, 2005 of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the
labor dispute over which he assumed jurisdiction, OSEC-AJ-0033-04/NCMB-RBIV-
LAG-NS-09-048-04/NCMB-RBIV-LAG-NS-02-004-05, has long attained finality. The
union never denied this.

You might also like