G.R. No. 255656 . April 25, 2022
JULES KING M. PAITON, JAMES C. ADRIATICO, ISAGANI M. UBALDE, ROLAND A. AGUSTIN, MARIO S. MANAHAN, JR., AND JESROME C. SIEGA, PETITIONERS, VS. ARMSCOR GLOBAL DEFENSE, INC. [FORMERLY, ARMS CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES], MARTIN TUASON (OWNER/PRESIDENT), ATTY. ERMILANDO O. VILLAFUERTE (HR-HEAD/IN-HOUSE COUNSEL), MANPOWER OUTSOURCING SERVICES, INC., AND DIOGENES JAURIQUE (PRESIDENT/OWNER), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners were employed as Machine Operators by respondent Armscor Global Defense, Inc. (Armscor). Between 2016 and 2017, they filed separate complaints for regularization and payment of benefits against Armscor and Manpower Outsourcing Services, Inc. (MOSI) with the NLRC, alleging they were regular employees of Armscor by operation of law and that Armscor engaged in illegal labor-only contracting by transferring them to different agencies like MOSI. These cases (collectively referred to as the regularization cases) were pending appeal before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court at the time of the present petition.
During the pendency of these regularization cases, on June 16, 2017, Armscor refused petitioners entry to the work premises after MOSI pulled them out following the expiration and non-renewal of the service contract between Armscor and MOSI. Consequently, on July 6, 2017, petitioners filed a new complaint for illegal constructive dismissal with claims for damages and attorney’s fees against respondents before the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal constructive dismissal case on the ground of litis pendentia or forum shopping, ruling that it shared similar parties, issues, and causes of action with the pending regularization cases. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of the illegal constructive dismissal case due to litis pendentia or forum shopping.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution, and remanded the illegal constructive dismissal case to the Labor Arbiter for resolution on the merits.
The Court held that the Labor Tribunals and the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case on the ground of litis pendentia. While forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present—identity of parties, rights asserted/relief prayed for founded on the same facts, and identity such that judgment in one would be determinative of the other—these elements were not satisfied in this case.
The causes of action in the two sets of cases were distinct. The regularization cases sought a declaration of regular employment status and payment of attendant benefits. The illegal constructive dismissal case, filed after petitioners were barred from work, sought reinstatement and full backwages due to an alleged unlawful termination. A ruling in the regularization cases on the existence of an employer-employee relationship would not automatically resolve the issue of whether petitioners were illegally dismissed; the latter requires proof of dismissal and the absence of just or authorized cause. Therefore, the cases could proceed independently without constituting forum shopping. The Labor Arbiter should have resolved the illegal dismissal case on its merits, including the preliminary issue of employer-employee relationship, without preempting the pending regularization cases.