Scribd
Upload
179 views

Ibm Vs Nestle

The petitioner union staged a strike against the respondent Nestle Philippines, Inc. The DOLE assumed jurisdiction over the strike and certified it to the NLRC. The parties later agreed to a compromise agreement which was approved by the NLRC. Over 11 years later, the petitioners filed a motion for writ of execution to enforce monetary terms of the compromise agreement. The NLRC denied the motion, finding the remedy was barred by prescription. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that since a compromise agreement approved by the NLRC has the force and effect of a judgment, the petitioners correctly filed a motion for writ of execution to enforce its terms, and such motion was not barred by prescription.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
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
179 views

Ibm Vs Nestle

The petitioner union staged a strike against the respondent Nestle Philippines, Inc. The DOLE assumed jurisdiction over the strike and certified it to the NLRC. The parties later agreed to a compromise agreement which was approved by the NLRC. Over 11 years later, the petitioners filed a motion for writ of execution to enforce monetary terms of the compromise agreement. The NLRC denied the motion, finding the remedy was barred by prescription. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that since a compromise agreement approved by the NLRC has the force and effect of a judgment, the petitioners correctly filed a motion for writ of execution to enforce its terms, and such motion was not barred by prescription.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
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

G.R. No.

198675, September 23, 2015

ILAW BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. CHAPTER


(ICE CREAM AND CHILLED PRODUCTS DIVISION), ITS OFFICERS, MEMBERS,
BONIFACIO T. FLORENDO, EMILIANO B. PALANAS AND GENEROSO P.
LAXAMANA, Petitioners, v. NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS:

petitioner union staged a strike against herein respondent .Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Acting Secretary, issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the
strike and certifying the same to the NLRC.

petitioner union filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, questioning the above
order of the Acting DOLE Secretary.

However, after a series of conciliation meetings and discussions between the parties,
they agreed to resolve their differences and came up with a compromise. the NLRC
issued its Decision approving the parties' compromise agreement and granting their
Joint Motion to Dismiss.

after a lapse of more than eleven (11) years from the time of execution of the subject
MO A, petitioners filed with the NLRC a Motion for Writ of Execution contending that
they have not been paid the amounts they are entitled to in accordance with the MOA.

Respondent filed its Opposition to the Motion for Writ of Execution contending that
petitioners' remedy is already barred by prescription.

NLRC promulgated its Resolution denying petitioners' application for the issuance of a
writ of execution on the ground of prescription.

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA questioning the above


Resolutions of the NLRC.

Issue:

The Court of Appeals erred in misappreciating the facts of the case.

Held:

It is wrong for petitioners' counsel to argue that since the NLRC Decision approving the
parties' compromise agreement was immediately executory, there was no need to file a
motion for execution. It is settled that when a compromise agreement is given judicial
approval, it becomes more than a contract binding upon the parties.6 Having been
sanctioned by the court, it is entered as a determination of a controversy and has the
force and effect of a judgment.7 It is immediately executory and not appealable, except
for vices of consent or forgery.8The non-fulfillment of its terms and conditions
justifies the issuance of a writ of execution; in such an instance, execution
becomes a ministerial duty of the court.9 Stated differently, a decision on a compromise
agreement is final and executory.10 Such agreement has the force of law and is
conclusive between the parties.11 It transcends its identity as a mere contract binding
only upon the parties thereto, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to
execution in accordance with the Rules.12

You might also like