In Styleworks Garment Export v. Bentor,1G.R. No. 241888, January 10, 2019. the Supreme Court pointed out the inconsistent positions pursued by the petitioners that it no longer gave due course to their arguments. The Court ruled:
Essentially, petitioners argue that they should not have been ordered to pay respondents separation pay and instead allowed to find equivalent positions for them. Petitioners must, however, be reminded that they clearly stated in their Opposition to respondents’ Motion for Execution filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) that taking petitioners back as workers would be prejudicial to the company because they have already filled up their former positions. They did not mention therein that it was possible for them to find or create positions equivalent to respondents’ former positions as to accommodate them, thus, leaving the impression that they could no longer take respondents back. However, when they were ordered to instead pay respondents their separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners made a turn around by asserting that they should have first been ordered by the LA to find equivalent positions for respondents. Clearly, petitioners were taking inconsistent positions to suit their purpose. It bears to state that “[a] party will not be allowed to make a mockery of justice by taking inconsistent positions which, if allowed, would result in brazen deception.”
Further Reading:
- Styleworks Garment Export v. Bentor, G.R. No. 241888, January 10, 2019.
