G.R. No. L-45498 November 22, 1985
ELIZALDE SPECIAL POLICE UNION, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, acting through its Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs, Hon. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, and ELIZALDE CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from the illegal dismissal of 180 security employees by Elizalde Co., Inc. in 1974. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ordered their reinstatement with backwages, a decision affirmed by the Secretary of Labor and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-39097. Prior to execution, a majority of the union members, through their officers, entered into a compromise agreement via voluntary arbitration. However, 25 dissenting members contested the agreement, leading a Labor Arbiter to declare it invalid as to them and order their reinstatement with full backwages. This order was affirmed by the NLRC. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor modified the award to six months of backpay and held reinstatement in abeyance pending final merits determination.
Both parties challenged this modification. The company filed a petition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-43954), which was dismissed for lack of merit on October 20, 1976. Simultaneously, the union members appealed to the Office of the President. On that same date, Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora issued a decision affirming the Secretary of Labor’s modified order and directing that the main case proceed under the New Labor Code. Unyielding, the company filed another Supreme Court petition (G.R. No. L-45450) to annul the Zamora decision. The Court dismissed this petition on February 28, 1977, explicitly ruling that the issue had already been conclusively settled in the prior dismissal of G.R. No. L-43954.

ISSUE

Whether the instant petition filed by the Elizalde Special Police Union, assailing the same Zamora decision of October 20, 1976, should be granted.

RULING

No, the petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Zamora decision had already achieved finality and was beyond further review. The legal logic is grounded on the doctrine of finality of judgment and the prohibition against forum-shopping or repetitious litigation. The Court emphasized that the very decision being assailed by the petitioner Union had already been directly challenged and upheld in the prior case, G.R. No. L-45450, filed by the respondent company. In that case, the Union participated as a private respondent and was duly heard. The Court’s resolution in G.R. No. L-45450 constituted a definitive adjudication on the validity of the Zamora decision. Allowing the Union to re-litigate the same matter through a new petition would violate the principle that there must be an end to litigation once a judgment becomes final. The Court found the present petition to be a clear and improper attempt to obtain a second review of a settled issue, warranting its outright dismissal to prevent an endless chain of appeals and ensure judicial economy and stability of court decisions.