58. GARCIA VS PAL
Due to the failure to seasonably appeal or
Although it does not have the same effect as bar by
prior judgment which precludes subsequent actions,
conclusiveness of judgment operates as estoppel with
respect to matters in issue or points controverted, on
the determination of which the finding or judgment
was anchored.
FACTS:  Petitioner was assigned by Stellar to PAL, in the
janitorial services at the company's in-flight kitchen.
During the course of his employment, he received a
warning from Stellar for absences incurred.
He was transferred to PAL's Catering Operations as a
kitchen busboy in the sanitizing section, but was requested
Stellar for a replacement, due to underperformance.
VP-Operations/Comptroller of Stella, demanded from
petitioner a written explanation why no disciplinary action
should be taken against him, in view of his performance.
Stellar was dissatisfied with the explanation and
terminated the Garcia.
Garcia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Stellar
and Lluz, as well as PAL and Trinidad before Labor Arbiter
Tumanon.
Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal was illegal.
NLRC reversed Labor Arbiter Tumanon, holding that
petitioner was "guilty of gross and habitual neglect and
was consequently terminated for cause and with due
process.
CA modified declaring that the pecuniary awards are the
sole responsibility of Stellar, petitioner's direct employer.
Garcia moved for reconsideration to declare PAL solidarily
liable, but CA denied the motion on March 17, 2004.
Petitioner received a copy of the CA March 17, 2004
Resolution on March 26, 2004.
He had until April 10, 2004 to file this petition. He asked
the Court that he be allowed until April 25, 2004 to file the
same, but failed to comply when he filed the petition only
on April 26, 2004. 
ISSUE: Was there res judicata?
HELD: Yes.
question the NLRC ruling, its factual and legal findings
have attained finality. Consequently, the holding that PAL
is not petitioner's employer constitutes res judicata on the
same issue in this petition.
Res judicata has two (2) concepts.
1. The first is "bar by prior judgment" under Rule 39,
Section 47(b), which dictates that the judgment
or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction
on the merits concludes the parties and their
privies to the litigation and constitutes a bar to a
new action or suit involving the same cause of
action either before the same or any other
tribunal.
2. The second rule of res judicata is embodied in Rule
39, Section 47(c), and is known as "conclusiveness
of judgment."
It provides that any right, fact, or matter in issue
directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the
determination of an action before a competent court in
which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is
conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot
again be litigated between the parties and their privies
whether or not the claim or demand, purpose, or subject
matter of the two suits is the same.
It refers to a situation where the judgment in the prior
action operates as an estoppel only as to the matters
actually determined or which were necessarily included
therein.
Applying the rule on conclusiveness of judgment to this
case, the parties are now precluded from relitigating the
same issue of the existence of an employment relationship
between PAL and petitioner.
Although it does not have the same effect as bar by prior
judgment which precludes subsequent actions,
conclusiveness of judgment operates as estoppel with
respect to matters in issue or points controverted, on the
determination of which the finding or judgment was
anchored