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.
Ruling:
The court emphasized that the
compliance with the certification against forum shopping is different and
separate from the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. There is
difference in the treatment between the two situations in terms of the
imposable sanctions and the means of enforcing them. The failure to comply with
the certification requirement against forum shopping is sufficient cause for
the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to the filing of the complaint
or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing. The failure to avoid the act of forum
shopping, on the other hand, is a sufficient ground for a summary dismissal and
direct contempt.
In the first situation, forum
shopping takes place when the party files multiple suits that involve the same
parties with the same issue, either simultaneously or successively, in order to
obtain a favorable judgment. It is present when there is the requisites of
litis pendentia namely : (1) identity of parties is the same with the same
interests in both actions, (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed
for and founded on the same facts, (3) identity of the two preceding cases
where a judgment rendered in the pending case will amount to res judicata in
the other case. Taking into account these requisites, the court found no
elements of a forum shopping. The first petition before the CA was instituted
in order to question the NLRC ruling with respect to the illegal dismissal of
Alcaraz. The second petition before the CA involves the issue on the propriety
of the enforcement of the judgment award pending the resolution of the first CA
petition and the finality of the decision in the labor dispute between the
parties. The decision on the first CA petition does not amount to res judicata
with respect to the second petition before the CA as the two petitions involve
different subject matter and cause of action, hence there is no forum shopping.
In the second situation,
section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires the plaintiff to
disclose/declare under oath that the best of his knowledge no such other action
or claim is pending before other courts. Records show that the issues raised in
the petition before the CA and those raised in the June 16, 2010 Memorandum of
Appeal filed before the NLRC cover different subject matter and causes of
action, therefore there was no violation of the said provision of the rules of
court.
No comments:
Post a Comment