[G.R. No. 144163. April 4, 2001]

FLORENCIO AND LORETA BLANCO vs. MAGLANGIT

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2001.

G.R. No. 144163 (Florencio and Loreta Blanco vs. Fernando Maglangit, et al.)

This resolves the Joint Motion for Leave to file Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise and aforesaid Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise filed by petitioners and private respondents. The case stemmed from an illegal dismissal case filed by private respondents, all jeepney drivers engaged in the "boundary system," against petitioners, owners of the jeepneys.

On 6 March 1998 the Labor Arbiter ruled that private respondents were employees of petitioners who were illegally dismissed thus entitling them to back wages, retirement benefits and reinstatement. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission, in its resolution dated 16 March 1999, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. Not satisfied, private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On 7 February 2000 the appellate court set aside the decision of the NLRC and ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring them employees of petitioners.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied, prompting them to file a Petition for Review before this Court.

On 4 September 2000 the Court required private respondents to comment on the petition. After the Comment was filed the Court required petitioners to file their Reply in its resolution dated 27 November 2000. On 23 February 2001 petitioners filed their Reply. However, on 7 March 2001 both parties through their respective counsel filed their instant Joint Motion for Leave to File Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise and the aforesaid Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise.

In the Compromise Agreement private respondents agreed to desist from pursuing the case upon payment by petitioners of P650,000.00. The payment was evidenced by a photocopy of a check payable to Atty. Prosencio D. Jaso, respondents' counsel, and Atty. Jaso's written acknowledgment that he received the check.

A perusal of the Compromise Agreement however shows that it covers two (2) cases, the first is the instant case, "Florencio and Loreta Blanco v. Fernando Maglangit, et al.," G.R. No. 144163, and the second is "Nestor I. Delena and 24 Others, complainants v. Spouses Florencio and Loreta Blanco, respondents," NLRC NCR CA No. 017648-99. Although this Court has copies of the records of G.R. No. 144163, it has none of the NLRC NCR No. 017648-99 which is still allegedly pending before the First Division of the NLRC. Thus it cannot be determined if the Compromise Agreement is just for the parties involved. Further, the P650,000.00 was given as a whole without specifying how much each respondent or complainant is entitled to, thus making it difficult to establish if he or she obtained an equitable or satisfactory settlement.

ACCORDINGLY, the Compromise Agreement together with the records of the instant case, G.R. No. 144163, is REMANDED to the NLRC for appropriate action with the end in view of determining whether the terms and conditions thereof are just and equitable to all the parties concerned. In the affirmative, to APPROVE the Compromise Agreement as a full settlement of the parties in both G.R. No. 144163 and NLRC NCR CA No. 017648-99 and to render judgments thereon on the basis thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court