G.R. No. 110914, June 28, 2001
Alfredo Canuto, Jr. and Romeo De La Corte, petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Alfredo Canuto, Jr. and Romeo De La Corte were employees of private respondent Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. (Colgate) as statistical quality control supervisor and production foreman, respectively. Their services were terminated by Colgate on July 5, 1989, for loss of confidence due to their alleged involvement in a scheme to defraud the company by attempting to induce it to purchase perfume drums it already owned. On July 4, 1990, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter, who ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages. Colgate appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the labor arbiter’s decision and declared the dismissal lawful, but ordered Colgate to pay petitioners an indemnity of P1,000.00 for procedural due process lapse. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
It was revealed that prior to filing the illegal dismissal case, petitioners had filed an amended complaint for damages dated August 16, 1989, against the Colgate officers who signed their termination notice, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-3291 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The defendants in that civil case moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and forum shopping. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 25418, dismissed the civil case on the ground of forum shopping. Petitioners’ subsequent petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 142851) was denied, and their motion for reconsideration was denied with finality.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping committed by the petitioners.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. The Supreme Court found that petitioners committed forum shopping by filing two actions involving the same essential facts and issues: the civil case for damages before the regular courts and the illegal dismissal case before the labor tribunal. Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, founded on the same transactions and facts, and raising substantially the same issues. The Court emphasized that the rule against forum shopping was established even before the pertinent circulars formalized it, and compliance is mandatory. Petitioners’ act of filing both actions, seeking contradictory reliefs (damages from the company’s officers in one and from the company itself in the other, based on the same termination), constitutes willful forum shopping. Therefore, the instant petition is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioners.