G.R. No. 104513 . August 4, 1993.
SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (GLOWHRAIN), SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CHAPTER, ROGELIO M. SOLUTA, ELMER C. LABOG, JOSELITO A. SANTOS, FLORENTINO P. MATILLA, EDNA B. DACANAY, HENRY M. BABAY, RAY ANTONIO E. ROSAURA, DENNIS C. COSICO, VICENTE M. DELOSA, IRENE V. RAGAY, APOLONIO BONDOC, QUINTOS B. BARRA, ALFREDO S. BAUTISTA, RICHARD T. GALIGO, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Silahis International Hotel, Inc. is the employer of the private respondent employees, who are represented by the respondent union, GLOWHRAIN. On November 16, 1990, the union filed a notice of strike and staged a strike on the same day. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction on November 28, 1990, ordering the strikers to return to work, which they did on November 29, 1990. On February 1, 1991, the hotel filed a complaint for illegal strike (NLRC NCR Case No. 02-00717-91) against the union and its members. On February 12, 1992, Labor Arbiter Cornelio L. Linsangan found the private respondents guilty of illegal strike and declared the union officers to have lost their employment. On February 14, 1992, the hotel barred the respondents from entering and terminated their services. The respondents filed an appeal from this decision on February 19, 1992. Subsequently, on February 27, 1992, the respondents filed a “Very Urgent Petition” for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction under Article 218(e) of the Labor Code, docketed as a separate case (NLRC NCR IC No. 00-0235-92), alleging that their termination before the decision became final caused grave injury. On March 11, 1992, the NLRC First Division issued a Minute Resolution ordering the reinstatement of certain employees upon the posting of a bond. The hotel filed a motion for reconsideration and subsequently a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order.

ISSUE

May the First Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) order the reinstatement of employees dismissed for leading and/or participating in an illegal strike, in an injunction case which is separate and distinct from the illegal strike case against them and which is pending appeal?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC’s order. The Court held that the filing of the separate injunction case (NLRC IC No. 00-0235-92) while the appeal in the main illegal strike case (NLRC NCR Case No. 02-00717-91) was pending constituted forum shopping. The issues in the two cases were interrelated, as the injunction sought relief from the dismissal that was a direct consequence of the illegal strike finding under appeal. The respondents, by approaching two different fora within the same agency to increase their chances of a favorable ruling, engaged in a practice that degrades the administration of justice. The NLRC erred in entertaining the separate injunction case; it should have consolidated the petition with the case on appeal. The Court admonished respondents’ counsel for this cunning practice. However, the Court noted that the propriety of the hotel’s act of dismissing the respondents before the decision became final could still be addressed in conjunction with the appealed case through a proper petition therein. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.