Abbot Laboratories Philippines, et al. vs Perlie Alcaraz GR No.
192571, Ruling: The court emphasized that the compliance with the certification
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.
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.