DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

This is the exception to the general rule that a law declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional is void. What the doctrine implies is that a law remains to be operative and constitutional until the same has been declared void. Thus, the law that has been declared as unconstitutional remains to be operative prior to the declaration of the Supreme Court on its unconstitutionality.

The doctrine does not stem from any statute but is based on fair play and equity. It operates when the declaration of a law's unconstitutionality will result in undue burden to those who rely on the law that is presumed to be legal and constitutional until declared otherwise.

It must be noted, however, that the doctrine of operative fact does not make an unconstitutional law valid and constitutional. It merely erases the effects of its unconstitutionality before it is judicially declared as void.

Abbot Laboratories Philippines, et al. vs Perlie Alcaraz GR No. 192571, July 23, 2013

Case Doctrine:

Compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself.

Facts:

The respondent Alcaraz was the Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager of Aventis Pasteur Philippines who showed interest in applying as a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager, a position that was published by the petitioner Abbot Laboratories in the newspaper. When the petitioner formally offered the position to the respondent, the latter accepted the position. It was on May 23, 2005 that Walsh, Almazar and Bernardo formally handed to the respondent a letter terminating her employment with the detailed explanation for her termination. The respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages against the petitioner and its officers. The Labor Arbiter upheld the termination of probationary employment of the respondent holding that the termination was justified with no evidence showing that the officers of the Abbot Lab acted in bad faith when terminating her services.

The NLRC annulled and set aside the ruling of the Labor Arbiter which prompted the petitioners to file before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, the action of the petitioner on its motion for reconsideration of the CA’s resolution in the second CA petition was denied that became final on January 10, 2011 because the petitioner failed to file a timely appeal on the said decision. Alcaraz, in her comment, raised the issue on forum shopping when the petitioner filed its second petition to the CA pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration that they filed earlier in the December 10, 2009 decision. Alcaraz further contends that the petitioners failed to comply with certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the rules of court when they failed to disclose in their petition filed on June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal filed before the NLRC.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner violated the rule against forum shopping and have violated the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

Carlito C. Encinas v PO1 Alfredo Agustin, Jr and PO1 Joel Caubang GR No. 187317, April 11, 2013

Case Doctrine:

There is forum shopping when litis pendencia or res judicata is present.

FACTS:

The petitioner Encinas was the Provincial Fire Marshall of Nueva Ecija. He was charged administratively with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in violation of the Administrative Code of 1987. He was dismissed from the service. The two respondents were holding the positions of Fire Officer I. He petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Civil Service Commission to dismiss the petitioner from the service.

The case arose when the petitioner allegedly required the respondents to pay him P5,000 in order not to relieve them from their station at the Cabanatuan City and re-assign them to a far flung area. The respondents decided to pay in fear of the re-assignment, but they manage to come up with P2,000 only causing the petitioner to order for their re-assignment to Cuyapo and Talugtug.

As a result, the respondents decided to file a complaint for illegal transfer before the Bureau of Fire Protection and at the same time filed another complaint before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office in Pampanga and the Civil Service Commission in Cabanatuan. Based on the filed complaints, the petitioner alleges that the respondents are guilty of forum shopping by filing the two identical complaints. The petitioner claims that the charges of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to public interest that were filed before the Civil Service Commission and the BFP are in violation of the rules against forum shopping.

ISSUE:

Is there a violation on the rules against forum shopping?