2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55486 are SET ASIDE, and
the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Callejo, Sr.
and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, resolutions set aside.
Note.—The attestation contained in the certificate of non-forum
shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed
the same. (Philippine Valve Mfg. Company vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 442 SCRA 383 [2004])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 147593. July 31, 2006.*
GERONIMO Q. QUADRA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS and the PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES
OFFICE, respondents.
Labor Law; Dismissals; Damages; A dismissed employee is entitled to
moral damages when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or constitutes an
act oppressive to labor or is done in a manner contrary to good morals,
good customs or public policy; Exemplary damages may be awarded if the
dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.—A
dismissed employee is entitled to moral damages when the dismissal is
attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is
done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy.
Exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a
wanton, oppres-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
222
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/9
2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Quadra vs. Court of Appeals
sive or malevolent manner. It appears from the facts that petitioner was
deliberately dismissed from the service by reason of his active involvement
in the activities of the union groups of both the rank and file and the
supervisory employees of PCSO, which unions he himself organized and
headed. Respondent PCSO first charged petitioner before the Civil Service
Commission for alleged neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the
service because of his union activities. The Civil Service Commission
recommended the dismissal of petitioner. Respondent PCSO immediately
served on petitioner a letter of dismissal even before the latter could move
for a reconsideration of the decision of the Civil Service Commission.
Respondent PCSO may not impute to the Civil Service Commission the
responsibility for petitioner’s illegal dismissal as it was respondent PCSO
that first filed the administrative charge against him. As found by the CIR,
petitioner’s dismissal constituted unfair labor practice. It was done to
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization.
Dismissals; Damages; Court found proper to award moral and
exemplary damages to illegally dismissed employees as their dismissal was
tainted with unfair labor practice in Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative,
Inc. (NEECO I) Employees Association, et al. v. NLRC, et al., 323 SCRA 86
(2000).—In Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NEECO I) Employees
Association, et al. v. NLRC, et al., 323 SCRA 86 (2000), we found it proper
to award moral and exemplary damages to illegally dismissed employees as
their dismissal was tainted with unfair labor practice. The Court said: Unfair
labor practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and employees to
self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and
management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal
with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect; and
disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable
labor-management relations. As the conscience of the government, it is the
Court’s sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor rights. For this
reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral and exemplary
damages on private respondent. x x x
Damages; The filing of a petition for damages before the Court of
Industrial Relations (CIR) did not constitute splitting of cause of action
under the Revised Rules of Court.—We agree with petitioner
223
VOL. 497, JULY 31, 2006 223
Quadra vs. Court of Appeals
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/9
2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
that the filing of a petition for damages before the CIR did not constitute
splitting of cause of action under the Revised Rules of Court. The Revised
Rules of Court prohibits parties from instituting more than one suit for a
single cause of action. Splitting a cause of action is the act of dividing a
single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, and bringing
suit for one of such parts only, intending to reserve the rest for another
separate action. The purpose of the rule is to avoid harassment and vexation
to the defendant and avoid multiplicity of suits.
Jurisdictions; Court of Industrial Relations; Previously, the Court of
Industrial Relations (CIR) had no jurisdiction over claims for damages; But
in Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ferrer, et al., 19 SCRA 130
(1967), Court upholds the jurisdiction of the CIR over claims for damages
incidental to an employee’s illegal dismissal.—The prevailing rule at the
time that the action for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal was filed
and tried before the CIR was that said court had no jurisdiction over claims
for damages. Hence, petitioner, at that time, could not raise the issue of
damages in the proceedings. However, on January 27, 1967, the Supreme
Court rendered its ruling in Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ferrer, et
al., 19 SCRA 130 (1967), upholding the jurisdiction of the CIR over claims
for damages incidental to an employee’s illegal dismissal. Petitioner
properly filed his claim for damages after the declaration by the Court and
before the ruling on their case became final. Such filing could not be
considered as splitting of cause of action.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Pete Quirino-Quadra for petitioner.
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55634 dated December 29, 2000 and its
resolution dated March 26, 2001. The Court of Appeals reversed and
set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No.
224
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Quadra vs. Court of Appeals
4312-ULP which affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter granting
moral and exemplary damages to petitioner Geronimo Q. Quadra in
connection with his dismissal from the service.
Petitioner Geronimo Q. Quadra was the Chief Legal Officer of
respondent Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) when he
organized and actively participated in the activities of Philippine
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/9
2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
Charity Sweepstakes Employees Association (CUGCO), an
organization composed of the rank and file employees of PCSO, and
then later, the Association of Sweepstakes Staff Personnel and
Supervisors (CUGCO) (ASSPS [CUGCO]). In April 1964, he was
administratively charged before the Civil Service Commission with
violation of Civil Service Law and Rules for neglect of duty and
misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service.
On July 14, 1965, the Civil Service Commission rendered a decision
finding petitioner guilty of the charges and recommending the
penalty of dismissal. The following day, on July 15, 1965, the
General Manager of PCSO, Ignacio Santos Diaz, sent petitioner a
letter of dismissal, in accordance with the decision of the Civil
Service Commission. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of
the decision of the Civil Service Commission on August 10, 1965.
At the same time, petitioner, together with ASSPS (CUGCO), filed
with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) a complaint for unfair
labor practice against respondent PCSO and its officers. The case
was docketed as Case No. 4312-ULP.
On November 19, 1966, the CIR issued its decision finding
respondent PCSO guilty of unfair labor practice for having
committed discrimination against the union and for having
dismissed petitioner due to his union activities. It ordered the
reinstatement of petitioner to his former position with full
backwages and with all the rights and privileges pertaining to said
position.1
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 61-86.
225
VOL. 497, JULY 31, 2006 225
Quadra vs. Court of Appeals
Respondent PCSO complied with the decision of the CIR. But
while it reinstated petitioner to his former position and paid his
backwages, it also filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review
on certiorari entitled “Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, et al.
v. The Association of Sweepstakes Staff Personnel, et al.” assailing
the decision of the CIR in Case No. 4312-ULP. The petition was
docketed as G.R. No. L-27546.2
On March 16, 1967, during the pendency of the case in the
Supreme Court, petitioner filed with the CIR a “Petition for
Damages.” He prayed for moral and exemplary damages in
connection with Case No. 4312-ULP. He cited the decision of the
Supreme Court in Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ferrer, et
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/9
2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
3
al. where it upheld the jurisdiction of the CIR over claims for
damages incidental to an employee’s dismissal.
Respondent PCSO moved to dismiss the petition for damages on
the following grounds: (1) the CIR has no jurisdiction to award
moral and exemplary damages; (2) the cause of action is barred by
prior judgment, it appearing that two complaints are brought for
different parts of a single cause of action; and (3) the petition states
no valid cause of action.
Petitioner resigned from PCSO on August 18, 1967.
The petition for damages and the motion to dismiss, however,
remained pending with the CIR until it was abolished and the NLRC
was created. On April 25, 1980, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision awarding moral and exemplary damages to petitioner in the
amount of P1.6 million. The dispositive portion of the decision
stated:
“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is
hereby rendered awarding to complainant Geronimo Q. Quadra moral
damages consisting of the following sum: Three Hundred Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P350,000.00) for besmirched reputation; Three Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P350,000.00) for social hu-
_______________
2 G.R. No. L-27546, July 16, 1982, 115 SCRA 34.
3 G.R. No. L-22979, January 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 130.
226
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Quadra vs. Court of Appeals
miliation; One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for mental
anguish; One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for serious anxiety;
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for wounded feelings; One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for moral shock; and the further
sum of P500,000.00 as exemplary damages, on account of the arbitrary and
unlawful dismissal effected by respondents. Consequently, respondents are
therefore ordered to pay complainant Quadra the total sum of One Million
Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,600,000.00) within ten (10) days after this
Decision becomes final.
SO ORDERED.”4
The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter,5
prompting respondent PCSO to file a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC. It held
that there was no basis for the grant of moral and exemplary
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/9
2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
damages to petitioner as his dismissal was not tainted with bad faith.
It was the Civil Service Commission that recommended petitioner’s
dismissal after conducting an investigation. It also held that the
petition claiming moral and exemplary damages filed by petitioner
after respondent PCSO had complied with the CIR decision of
reinstatement and backwages amounted to splitting of cause of
action.6
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the
Court of Appeals, but the same was denied for lack for merit.7
Petitioner now seeks the Court to review the ruling of the Court
of Appeals. He basically argues:
First: The ruling of the Court of Appeals that the PCSO did not act in
bad faith when it dismissed the petitioner is contrary to the already final and
executory decision of the CIR dated November
_______________
4 See CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 28-29.
5 Rollo, pp. 44-60.
6 Rollo, pp. 26-31.
7 Rollo, p. 42.
227
VOL. 497, JULY 31, 2006 227
Quadra vs. Court of Appeals
1[9], 1966 finding the PCSO guilty of bad faith and unfair labor practice in
dismissing the petitioner. The decision of the CIR was affirmed by the High
Court in the case of PCSO, et al. v. Geronimo Q. Quadra, et al., 115 SCRA
34. The Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to amend the final and
executory decision of November 1[9], 1966 of the CIR which was affirmed
by the High Court. Once a decision has become final [and] executory, it
could no longer be amended or altered.
Second: The ruling of the Court of Appeals that the claims for moral
and exemplary damages of the petitioner is allegedly “tantamount to
splitting of cause of action under Sec. 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure” is contrary to law. When petitioner filed with the CIR his
complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, the prevailing law
and jurisprudence was that the CIR did not have jurisdiction to grant moral
and exemplary damages. Petitioner’s claim for moral damages was filed
with the CIR in the same case by virtue of the ruling of the High Court in
Rheem v. Ferrer, 19 SCRA 130 holding that the CIR has jurisdiction to
award moral and exemplary damages arising out of illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice.8
The petition is impressed with merit.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/9
2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
A dismissed employee is entitled to moral damages when the
dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act
oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals,
good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages may be awarded
if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner.9 It appears from the facts that petitioner was deliberately
dismissed from the service by reason of his active involvement in
the activities of the union groups of both the rank and file and the
supervisory employees of PCSO, which unions he himself organized
and headed. Respondent PCSO first charged petitioner before the
Civil Service Commission for alleged neglect of duty and conduct
prejudicial to the service because of his union activities. The
_______________
8 Rollo, pp. 13-14.
9 Kay Products, Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162472, July 28, 2005,
464 SCRA 544.
228
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Quadra vs. Court of Appeals
Civil Service Commission recommended the dismissal of
petitioner. Respondent PCSO immediately served on petitioner a
letter of dismissal even before the latter could move for a
reconsideration of the decision of the Civil Service Commission.
Respondent PCSO may not impute to the Civil Service Commission
the responsibility for petitioner’s illegal dismissal as it was
respondent PCSO that first filed the administrative charge against
him. As found by the CIR, petitioner’s dismissal constituted unfair
labor practice. It was done to interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. It stated:
“Upon the entire evidence as a whole (sic), the [c]ourt feels and believes
that complainant Quadra was discriminatorily dismissed by reason of his
militant union activities, not only as President of PCSEA, but also as
President of the ASSPS.”10
In Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NEECO I)
Employees Association, et al. v. NLRC, et al.,11 we found it proper to
award moral and exemplary damages to illegally dismissed
employees as their dismissal was tainted with unfair labor practice.
The Court said:
“Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and
employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/9
2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and
otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual
respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy
and stable labor-management relations. As the conscience of the
government, it is the Court’s sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with
labor rights.
For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral and
exemplary damages on private respondent. x x x”
On the second issue, we agree with petitioner that the filing of a
petition for damages before the CIR did not constitute
_______________
10 CIR Decision, Case No. 4312-ULP, p. 23, Rollo, p. 83.
11 G.R. No. 116066, January 24, 2000, 323 SCRA 86.
229
VOL. 497, JULY 31, 2006 229
Quadra vs. Court of Appeals
splitting of cause of action under the Revised Rules of Court. The
Revised Rules of Court prohibits parties from instituting more than
one suit for a single cause of action. Splitting a cause of action is the
act of dividing a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or
more parts, and bringing suit for one of such parts only, intending to
reserve the rest for another separate action. The purpose of the rule
is to avoid harassment and vexation to the defendant and avoid
multiplicity of suits.12
The prevailing rule at the time that the action for unfair labor
practice and illegal dismissal was filed and tried before the CIR was
that said court had no jurisdiction over claims for damages. Hence,
petitioner, at that time, could not raise the issue of damages in the
proceedings. However, on January 27, 1967, the Supreme Court
rendered its ruling in Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ferrer,
et al.13 upholding the jurisdiction of the CIR over claims for
damages incidental to an employee’s illegal dismissal. Petitioner
properly filed his claim for damages after the declaration by the
Court and before the ruling on their case became final. Such filing
could not be considered as splitting of cause of action.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the assailed decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of
the NLRC in NLRC NCR Case No. 4312-ULP is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/9
2/12/22, 8:09 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497
Garcia, J., No part.
Assailed decision and resolution reversed and set aside. That of
the National Labor Relations Commission reinstated.
_______________
12 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, vol. 1, (1997), p. 67.
13 Supra note 3.
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017eeb43cdc543895d38000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/9
